Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Common Agricultural Policy

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the further reform of the common agricultural policy.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government have led the way in seeking reform of the common agricultural policy. I shall be continuing to press for further reform at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg next week.

Sir Thomas Arnold: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. What end result would he like to see from further reform of the common agricultural policy? Is there now a case for repatriation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I should like to see a common agricultural policy which moved nearer to world market prices; which was simpler to administer; and which, as a matter of priority, got rid of such idiocies as the wine regime, under which we pay for the conversion of low-grade Italian wine into industrial fuel which is then sent at a subsidised rate to Brazil to be put into motor cars. That is crazy.
On my hon. Friend's final point, repatriation is not necessarily the way forward. If we are to have a common market in agricultural products, we need a level playing field in terms of support systems. That is the purpose of having the right common agricultural policy.

Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister recall his predecessor's statement in May 1992 to the effect that the CAP reforms were good for Britain, good for farmers and good for the taxpayer? Is he aware that, between 1992 and next week's estimates, the CAP budget will have increased by £6.3 billion? How can that be good for the taxpayer, the consumer or the average family, who are paying £20 a week more than they should for their food? Does not that mean that the CAP continues to be bad for Britain, bad for the taxpayer and bad for the consumer?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. The reforms relieved the British consumer of something like £1 billion of excess costs. I agree that we want prices to come down further, nearer to the real market prices. However, the reforms were a useful step forward and they have done better than many people predicted in getting rid of surpluses of, for example, cereals and beef. We now have much less beef in intervention than we used to.

Mr. Pickles: In considering reform of the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend consider

especially the effect of a proposed new directive on nitrates in broadleaf vegetables, which threatens many vegetables grown under glass in Britain? I thank him for taking the matter to the Council of Ministers. Will he assure the House that he will fight as hard as his predecessor for British horticulture?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have sent a powerful paper containing evidence from absolutely first-class epidemiologists such as Sir Richard Doll, which proves that there is absolutely no risk from nitrates in lettuce and that the directive is misconceived. I shall fight it. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying that he will never be isolated in Europe. He says that he will always agree, which means that he will sign up to such directives. One has to he isolated sometimes if one is to fight.

Dr. Strang: May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? I am sure that his family history, knowledge of agriculture and ministerial experience will be a help to him. Does the new CAP policy group mean that the Minister has spent some of the past three months studying the CAP? Did he note that less than two years ago one of his predecessors presented the latest reform as something of a triumph for Britain? Is not the truth of the matter that during the past 15 years the Government have not mounted a serious attempt to alter a policy that is misusing thousands of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money?

Mr. Waldegrave: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and congratulate him on his election to the shadow Cabinet. The post-MacSharry reforms were indeed a great improvement on what was there before. Surpluses have been cut, and the level of overpricing has been brought back, but there is far more to do. The entry of central and eastern European countries—towards the end of the century, we hope—will provide not only an opportunity but the necessity for further major reform. We shall take that opportunity and I hope that we shall lead the way.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the common agricultural policy is the uneven nature of compliance and enforcement in the different states within the European Union? Will he consider suggesting to his colleagues in Europe that the officials responsible for inspection, enforcement and compliance might operate on an exchange basis between countries, so that ours could assist other European countries while we could enjoy the regime that those countries have had hitherto?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, but I am not entirely sure that I should like to swap our inspectors for those from some other countries, even if it brought some benefits to our people. There is a real issue, and I shall certainly argue with the Commission that we need proper enforcement throughout the EU. Indeed, the subject will arise at the next Council, in relation to animal welfare.

Mr. Tyler: I, too, welcome the Minister; I also welcome his statement at the Conservative party conference that he is to set up a CAP policy group. Will he take advantage of the developing consensus in the


House on the need for reform, and on some of the directions that such reform might take? Will he comment on his predecessor's statement that
Set-aside is here and we must make the most of it"?
Should we take that to mean that set-aside is here to stay on the current scale?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. Although there is great expertise within my Ministry, I believe that there is no harm in seeking to ensure that we use everybody who can contribute on that important subject, both in this country and more widely. As for set-aside, in the long term we do not like such production control, either through quotas or through set-aside. We would rather move the emphasis towards lower prices, and getting production into balance with consumption. But while we have set-aside, surely we should use it for beneficial purposes. That is why I shall argue, for example, that forestry should be possible on set-aside land.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good record in emphasising the educational value of reducing tobacco consumption—that that is something to be commended—but that there is an inconsistency between that and the support for tobacco producers in the rest of the European Community?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that the tobacco regime is the part of the CAP that I, as a former Secretary of State for Health, like least. As well as its objectives being thoroughly unsatisfactory, it has been subject to considerable fraud. It seems entirely mad that we should spend money trying to persuade people not to smoke, while at the same time spending more money to subsidise the growing of tobacco.

Land Drainage

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes in the exercise of his responsibilities for land drainage of protecting the environment and the habitat of birds and other wild animals.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): The powers that MAFF exercises in the relationship between land drainage and environmental protection are fully detailed in the publication "Water Level Management Plans", a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety among conservation groups and interests that the announcement of a new environmental agency may mean that that agency would have fewer powers than those now residing with the National Rivers Authority? Will he give the House an undertaking that the new agency will have equally robust powers and a duty to promote conservation in water management, rather than merely having "regard to" it, as was spelt out in the publicity?

Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not directly in my province to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency. That is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I am aware that concern has been expressed about the word "conservation" in the context of

that agency, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the information, such as water level management plans and the other guidance given to all authorities with an interest in land drainage, will not change. Their obligations and requirements—as regards the new Land Drainage Act 1994, for example—will remain unaltered under the new arrangements.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whose Bill last night will go a long way towards protecting the environment and habitat of birds and other wild animals, and will curtail the activities of people whose sole intent is to destroy that habitat and to destroy country life?

Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the novelty of his question. I will certainly pass on his greetings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is always important in countryside and conservation matters to get an appropriate balance between the intrusion of human beings and wildlife.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has for strengthening the control over BSE.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): All our controls on BSE are based on independent scientific advice, which is on-going.

Mr. Morgan: May I first congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion? As the Government have been wrong on so many things about BSE—wrong on the numbers forecast, wrong on the time profile forecast, wrong on transmission between generations and wrong on transmission between species—is not it now time for them to close the remaining loophole by which BSE-infected products can get into the food chain, namely spinal cord and brain products from calves less than six months old?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations that are not supported either in this country or in Europe by any of the scientists who have investigated the matter. I suggest that if he has scientific evidence, on which our decision making is based, he puts it forward. Certainly the time scale in which the number of registered cases has fallen has been longer than originally anticipated. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that in the past year, we have seen a significant drop in reported cases—namely, 43 per cent.

Mr. Gale: In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box, may I say how very much we appreciate the candour and openness with which her Department has faced the highly emotive problem of BSE? She will be aware of the very real concern that has been expressed by the British Veterinary Association, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by others about the potential for the importation of hitherto eradicated animal diseases from eastern Europe through the European Union. Can she reassure the House and


those bodies that her Department will take every possible measure to ensure that those diseases are not reintroduced from eastern Europe through the Union by the back door?

Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I can reassure him. He will be aware of the decision and announcement by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who announced earlier this year that there would be a reinstatement of 100 per cent. inspection at all ports of entry.

Ms Eagle: Would the Minister care to comment on some of the theories now coming forward to the effect that the BSE problem may actually be caused by the use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture rather than by some of the factors that have been identified to date?

Mrs. Browning: I can certainly comment. All such allegations have been inspected by independent scientific advisers to the Department and none of them stands up to scientific investigation.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the take-up of the environmentally sensitive area scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jack: There has been a good response and more than 4,500 agreements have been signed.

Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome the success of the ESA scheme nationally—I understand that it now covers 10 per cent. of all land in England—but is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Essex coast ESA, which covers my constituency, farmers are unlikely to take up the scheme in large numbers to cover arable land as the payments available are so much lower than those for land put into set-aside?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. However, I must remind him that the objective of the Essex coast ESA is effectively to preserve the coastal marsh grazing areas from the River Stour to Canvey island. That is the principal objective and to the extent that such land is the principal objective, it is not in competition for payments from the arable area payment scheme. In terms of reversion from arable land to pasture, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already achieved 23 per cent. of our target of 1,000 hectares for reversion.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister may be interested to hear that I visited such a scheme in my constituency—the Tir Cymen scheme—during the summer. It is very successful in upland areas in my constituency in sustaining the income of small farmers and in providing work in a rural area. Why is it that within agricultural support generally, only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the agriculture budget is involved in environmental schemes?

Mr. Jack: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the support that we are giving through environmentally sensitive areas to the role of preserving the important environmental features in the countryside. In talking about numbers, the hon. Gentleman perhaps omits to mention the fact that we hope that, by 1996, with the full range of environmental schemes—not only

environmentally sensitive areas but countryside access, organic farming, marsh moorland and the whole range of other schemes—we will be spending around £100 million. That, by any standard of imagination, is a very large sum indeed.

Cereals

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the farming unions about individual base areas for cereal growers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jack: We have had no recent calls from farming unions for meetings on that subject.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am perfectly prepared to understand and accept that there are legal and perhaps even administrative difficulties in using individual base areas as a way in which to control quotas. There is no such thing as a pain-free quota system. But if the Minister is excluding individual base areas as a way of giving individual farmers the ability to control the penalties that they incur, what plans does he have for dealing with this very real problem, which certainly continues to occur in the cereal-growing areas of Scotland?

Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his honesty in acknowledging that there are significant problems in administration and farming practice relating to individual farmers having their own base areas. We are very aware of that.
We publish a great deal of information about crop yields—about yield by cereal type. That is backed up by information from the Home-grown Cereals Authority. That is important because farmers study it and make up their own minds in the light of trends in cereal cropping as they affect their individual enterprises. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall certainly have a discussion with the chairman of the Home-grown Cereals Authority to see if we can further improve the promulgation of that information for the better guidance of farmers.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still a prevailing sense of injustice among cereal growers in Wales, especially in the less-favoured areas? Furthermore, the farming unions—in Wales and, I think, nationally—have expressed their concern to the Ministry, first, about the fact that there is not a joint England arid Wales base region and, secondly, about the fact that, for the past two years, and until the recent welcome announcement made by the Ministry, severe losses have been incurred by Welsh cereal growers because of the previous base-area designations.

Mr. Jack: I am well aware of the situation that my hon. Friend describes to the House. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, he has made sterling efforts to try to address the problem. The latest situation—certainly in relation to new yield areas that have been introduced—means that those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all gain. There is a marginal loss of 10 kg per hectare for the English growers but, all told, it is a much better scheme for determining the level of arable area payments made to specialist cereal growers to which my hon. Friend referred.

Forestry Commission Land

Mr. Olner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Forestry Commission land in England is accessible to the public.

Mrs. Browning: There is general access to Forestry Commission land subject only to legal constraints or considerations of safety.

Mr. Olner: Although I welcome that statement and although we are all grateful that the Government have been forced to do a U-turn on the privatisation of the Forestry Commission as a result of effective public pressure from all parts of the community, does the Minister agree that there is an awful lot of private forestry land that is inaccessible for public use, although all Forestry Commission land is open to public use? Will she therefore seek to prevent any further piecemeal sell-offs of Forestry Commission land and, indeed, ensure that public access is gained to the land which has been sold by the Forestry Commission?

Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that access to land—legitimate access to land—is very important. I hope that he will welcome the fact that, in their reforms, the Government have proposed a £0.9 million budget to enable the Forestry Commission to buy land to which, at the moment, it is difficult to gain public access. That will enable the commission to provide greater access so that people may legitimately use the land.

Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is legitimate concern about access to woodland in many respects and that most people—I accept that there are a few exceptions on the Opposition Benches—would like that access to be arranged with co-operation rather than confrontation? My constituency contains the royal forest of Dean and other areas of woodland which could, in the fullness of time, be sold off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, where Forestry Commission land is sold, there are discussions with the purchasers to ensure that, with their co-operation, access to those woods continues?

Mrs. Browning: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is part of the Government's proposal and we shall do all that we can to ensure that it is enforced. As a former chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee, I can assure my hon. Friend that the way forward in relation to access to land is through co-operation and not just through opening the floodgates for people to roam wherever they wish.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister's answer mean that the Government admit that they made an historic blunder in privatising Forestry Commission land without providing for public access? In view of that concession, will the Government go further and restore access to many of the thousands of acres to which public access is no longer available?

Mrs. Browning: I have already identified the respects in which the Government are not only supporting the proposal to increase public access but putting money behind it. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who recently said that there should be a right to

roam, or with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who suggested that there were obviously some parts of the countryside where one could not wander?

Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I would not wish to exacerbate the already widening gap on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) had it right.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Is not much of the land that has been sold by the Forestry Commission very accessible to local people in the sense that it comprises small woodlands which are near human habitation and useful for recreation? Is it not the case that most of those areas do not have access agreements? Access agreements can be drawn up with local authorities, but they need the money to do that. Authorities have many other things on which to spend their money. Will the Minister assure the House that the money will be available for those agreements?

Mrs. Browning: Access agreements are important. Giving local authorities the funds to co-operate in that regard and giving them the time to make the arrangements are part of the Government's plan.

Animal Transportation

Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve the conditions of farm animals in transit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: I announced on 14 September a new measure to improve protection of the welfare of animals in transit, in particular those for export. This would give us the capacity, if evidence was available, to prosecute in Britain hauliers who had not looked after their animals properly on journeys, even though those journeys were abroad.

Mr. Luff: I welcome that answer, but will my right hon. Friend continue to press for an effective Europe-wide animal transport licensing and enforcement system? Can he give us any assessment of when our European partners, particularly the French, are going to take the matter as seriously as he clearly does?

Mr. Waldegrave: The measures that I have proposed go as far as we can on a national basis within the treaty of Rome. Incidentally, they will enable us to prosecute some of those frightful cases which were investigated—for example, by ITN—if evidence is brought in this country. However, the real task is to obtain Europe-wide licensing of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned. A group of countries—I am sorry to say a minority—in the Council is in favour and we are a firm part of that group. However, others, including France, have not taken that view. It would be most helpful if they would.

Mr. Beggs: I welcome the steps that the Ministry has already taken to improve the welfare of animals in transit but does the Minister agree that it is preferable that animals be transported to the nearest meat plant for processing and slaughter, but that a blanket ban on the export of livestock could seriously damage our successful trade in exporting pedigree breeding stock?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. The greater part of our trade is already in carcase meat. I believe that the steps that are now being taken to ensure that the trade expands are the right steps. They bring jobs, apart from anything else, to the United Kingdom. However, it would be very unfair to British farmers—who already, in most cases, have the highest standards in Europe—if unilateral action against them led to damage to them from pressure groups legitimately targeting standards in other parts of Europe which are very much lower. That is quite apart from the long-standing trade in thoroughbred exports and racehorses, for example, with which nobody is proposing to interfere.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is not it a fact that if, for whatever reason, customers are deprived of supplies of live animals from United Kingdom sources, they are likely to turn to other countries whose animal welfare standards are infinitely worse, and that there will be much more suffering for live animals?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It would be paradoxical if, in order to express anxiety about the subject here, steps were taken that led to a net loss in the standards of animal welfare because of the importation into our previous markets of animals from central Europe. I fear that the conditions in which such animals would have been reared and transported would be likely to be much lower.

Mr. Morley: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new post. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is widespread public concern about live animal exports for slaughter? Indeed, live animal exports are also exporting British jobs from the meat industry as well. Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at some of the more dodgy schemes to beat the ferry ban, such as flying live cows from a Humberside airport in old eastern bloc military transport planes? I hope that the Minister will make available to the House his vets' report on those trial flights.
Given that lamb and calf prices since the ferry ban demonstrate that we can have a viable trade in carcases, will the Minister do what he can to support the export of meat from this country, based on quality and price rather than on the misery of live animals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The greater part of our trade, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is already in carcases. It is wise that that trade should expand. However, I have no power to ban live exports. I have power to ensure that any live exports take place under strict welfare conditions. As for the Hull flight to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I am very happy to send to him, or to place in the Library of the House, the account of the vets from my Department who travelled with it. It was, I am advised, satisfactory. I will not allow—not that I would be able to persuade them to do it—vets in my Department to cut any corners whatsoever in the maintenance of proper standards, but if they are proper standards, that is a legal trade.

Beef

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the EU Agriculture Commissioner in respect of beef.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have already had three meetings with Commissioner Steichen, the first one on 5 September at my request, at which those issues were raised.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the beef sector is very important to the farmers of Herefordshire and the marches? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make towards relaxation of the rules on trade which were imposed by the European Commission, particularly as they relate to the younger animal?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. With the shape of the BSE epidemic now moving in the way in which it is, it would be fair to take action in relation to young animals. I have raised that matter with the Commissioner and I have some hopes of progress. I will report to my hon. Friend and to the House more widely on how the negotiations go.

Mr. Tony Banks: I add my welcome to the Minister. How appropriate it is to have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with his own herd of mad cows. Can he give an assurance that he has not been giving any of his home-made beef pies to Baroness Thatcher recently?

Mr. Waldegrave: Whether or not I have a herd of mad cows, that is much happier than being a Leader of the Opposition with a herd of mad Back Benchers behind me.

Dairy Farmers

Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

Mr. Waldegrave: I regularly meet representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them, including the dairy sector.

Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements for Milk Marque will not have an adverse effect on dairy farmers' incomes, particularly in the early stages if payments have to be reduced?

Mr. Waldegrave: The new arrangements put the industry in the proper position of negotiating price and supply between the producers and the manufacturers. That is much more satisfactory. If there were to be abuse by anybody within that market, it would be for the competition authorities to sort it out. I was pleased that the courts ruled that the system should be put in place and that there should be no further delay in the vesting day, because it would have thrown the industry into great confusion if there had been. I believe that the new system will bring benefits to the consumer and to producers, although undoubtedly it will take some time to settle down properly.

Dr. Strang: Surely the Minister is aware of the statement by his predecessor that Dairy Crest would definitely be floated before deregulation on 1 November. As we assume that that will not take place, can he give


us some idea of when flotation will occur? Is it the case that the Director General of Fair Trading is likely to refer Milk Marque to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before Christmas? What will the Minister do to prevent the new free market arrangements from damaging profitability, investment and jobs in the dairy industry?

Mr. Waldegrave: Any potential reference by the Director General of Fair Trading is entirely a matter for him. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the flotation of Dairy Crest. However, he will have seen stories in the newspaper yesterday of various proposals. Many scare stories have been put about on this matter. The most obvious of them is that anything in these changes is likely to affect the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep. There is no reason for that at all. The price of liquid milk changes by less than half a penny. If we find companies—as some of them have said that they will do—putting up the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep by 3p or 4p, that is nothing to do with these changes.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance, with regard to the disgraceful fiddling of milk quotas by the Italians, that under no circumstances whatever will we agree to the retrospective legislation proposed by the European Commission, the effect of which would be to relieve the Italians of the penalties that they have incurred? Furthermore, can he ensure that we will not withdraw the legal action in the Court of Justice, especially as the issue on which it largely turns is the insistence by the Italians that in return for all this, they will withdraw their opposition to the veto on the own-resources legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave: What really matters is bringing home to the Italians in financial terms the fact that they abused their quota position for many years and they must be made to pay for it.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the potential implications for the common agricultural policy of the enlargement of the EU.

Mr. Waldegrave: EFTAn enlargement is unlikely to have major implications for the common agricultural policy. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear to the House, however, fundamental changes to the CAP will be needed before the eastern European countries can join the European Union.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept the concerns of the NFU and many others that accession of eastern European and central European countries to the European Union will not enable the present common agricultural policy to survive? Does he believe that the policy review committee that he announced at the Tory party conference last week will be able to get a deal accepted by Europe which will give a fair deal to consumers and producers in the years ahead?

Mr. Waldegrave: That must be the objective, and there are beginning to be some signs of thinking in the European Commission which runs in the way that the House would like. For example, shortly, a report known as the Munk report will be published. If the Financial

Times preview of that is correct, the report goes very much in the sort of direction that the hon. Gentleman and I would both like. However, we should not overestimate the difficulties on the way. We have a huge task in persuading the majority of other countries in the present Community of the need for radical reform. That is why it is unwise for Labour Members to talk so much in terms of consensus in the European Union; sometimes, we need to disagree and change attitudes. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear" but I wish that conversations were less noisy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend, to whom I extend a welcome to his new responsibilities, give us an assurance that the extension of the European Community will have no impact on milk quotas? He is aware that this country is not self-sufficient in liquid milk. Will he therefore ensure that we do not surrender any of our quota and that we continue to press for the cross-border transfer of quotas which would assist this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think EFTAn accession will have much effect on that, but my hon. Friend makes a sensible and important point. The way forward must be to seek quotas that are tradeable across national boundaries. There is a long way to go to persuade some of our colleagues in Europe of the necessity of that, because some of them do not have tradeable quotas within their own countries, but that is my objective. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter will probably want to support me on that.

Set-aside Land

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has in respect of arrangements for set-aside land.

Mr. Jack: New proposals to develop alternative non-food use crops which can be grown on set-aside land have been published, and we have launched the countryside access scheme.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that taxpayers subsidise farmers to grow less food, thus bringing up prices; subsidise farmers to grow food regardless of the yield; subsidise farmers with a guaranteed minimum price; subsidise farmers by their intervention stores; and then consumers—the taxpayers—have to pay increased prices in the shops? When will he stop the income support scheme for farmers, many of whom are millionaires? The set-aside scheme was designed to cut food production by 50 per cent., but it does not do that. When will the right hon. Gentleman act against the common agricultural policy, before it collapses under the weight of its own unfairness, futility and stupidity? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I asked for the co-operation of the House less than five minutes ago, but it would appear that I am not receiving it. I expect the support and co-operation of the House—not a lot of "Hear, hears" and continued conversations.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has been exercising a certain right to roam away from the facts of what we have been up to. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have pressed forward in pursuit of realistic reforms of the


common agricultural policy. We have pressed forward reforms of the set-aside scheme too. I am singularly disappointed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the measures that we have taken to encourage set-aside for alternative, non-food uses. His failure to acknowledge, for instance, the short rotational coppice scheme is lamentable.

Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to set up a CAP policy review group—an important initiative taken by the Government for the future of agriculture. Will my hon. Friend ensure that part of the remit of that group will be to nail the lie, by means of proper research, about the link between agricultural price support and food prices—the sort of nonsense that we have heard talked about by the Labour party today?

Mr. Jack: I agree. The Opposition line is to end the common agricultural policy, pull the rug from under British farmers and not think about the consequences. They talk about a burden of £20 a week per family imposed by the CAP, but the figure is not valid because nobody knows what world prices would be in a world without the CAP. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall adopt a realistic view of reform.

Mr. Tipping: When English farmers alone receive more than £140 million in set-aside payments, do not people have the right to expect better conservation measures, an improvement of the landscape and better access to the countryside in return for that money?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when I was answering questions earlier. I said that, in the financial year 1995-96, we shall spend about £100 million on a range of environmental measures designed to achieve a better balance between farming and conservation.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet small farmer; in Basildon to discuss problems of small dairy farms.

Mr. Jack: I am happy to have such a meeting the next time that I am in Basildon.

Mr. Amess: While I welcome the news that my hon. Friend will be visiting my constituency, will he kindly tell me how the new arrangements for marketing milk will benefit small dairy producers in Basildon?

Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the basis for his question, which is clearly fighting for the safeguarding of the doorstep pinta. I understand that, under the new arrangements, farmers who bottle their own milk will be relieved of having to pay 1.5p a pint in levy

to the milk marketing board, which will make those excellent doorstep deliveries so much more competitive under the new regime.

Madam Speaker: Time's up. Questions to the Prime Minister. I call Michael Clapham.

Mr. Skinner: Give him the money.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Clapham: When did the Prime Minister first become aware of the allegations against the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)? What has he done about it, especially in relation to the Minister who has not resigned? Can he give the House an assurance that no other members of his Government are involved in corruption?

The Prime Minister: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall reply in detail to each of those points, for I think that the House would wish me to do so.
The allegations were brought to me privately some three weeks ago. It was clear that the allegations reported to me originated, although they did not come to me directly, from Mr. Al Fayed. I made it absolutely clear at that time that I was not prepared to come to any arrangements with Mr. Al Fayed. I was not prepared—

Mr. Skinner: How much did he offer?

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Prime Minister: I immediately made it perfectly clear that those matters would be fully investigated and asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an independent and full investigation. He has been doing so and he is continuing to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) wrote to me following that investigation and discussions with the Cabinet Secretary to say that he had a business relationship with Mr. Al Fayed and that he was paid fees. He did not, however, declare the necessary detail in the Register of Members' Interests during the consultancy. He has tendered his resignation and I have accepted it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wrote to me explicitly refuting the allegations that he was paid any money to ask questions or to undertake any activity whatsoever on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. My hon. Friend has announced that he will be instituting legal proceedings to seek damages for libel.


I have made it clear that I am determined to see the highest possible standards in public life and to see that they are maintained. It is right that such allegations should be investigated. They should be investigated—as they have been—by the Cabinet Secretary. Equally, if any further occasions arise, they will be investigated thoroughly and appropriate action taken.

Mr. Wilshire: Following on from that, will my right hon. Friend now arrange for the Audit Commission to conduct investigations into allegations made in the newspapers of corruption by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council—the allegations being that it corruptly used millions of pounds to buy votes in marginal wards?

The Prime Minister: There have been allegations of that sort against local authorities before and I believe that, as with hon. Members of this House, such allegations deserve to be properly investigated by the proper authorities.

Mr. Blair: While we note the resignation of one Minister and we await the outcome of the inquiry into the other, does the Prime Minister understand that today's allegations can no longer be seen as isolated incidents, but that his Government are becoming tainted? If he is serious about standards in British public life, will he now respond specifically to three proposals, which I shall put to him? First, that no Minister who has privatised a company should subsequently end up on its board; secondly, that he publish a list of all members of quangos, their payments, perks and any position with any political party; and thirdly, that the cash for questions inquiry now be broadened, made deeper, held in public and made fully independent so that the confidence of the British people in their Government can begin to be restored.

The Prime Minister: As I have said in the House on previous occasions and repeat now, I am determined to ensure high standards of probity right across government, and I will not tolerate anything less than the highest standards of behaviour. Special standards are required of those in public life and special sacrifices must be made by people when those standards in public life are not kept.
I am not prepared to take action against people on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and against the background of concrete assurances from the person concerned that the charges laid against him are without foundation. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would share my view about those points.
On the right hon. Gentleman's substantive questions, I shall deal first with quangos. Last May I established an independent working body across government to look at the system of appointments of such bodies, and I expect to receive the report of that body very shortly. In addition, the Treasury and the Office of Public Service and Science are preparing revised guidance on making appointments to issue to Departments. Last summer, I also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look right across the board at appointments to all public bodies and to make recommendations to me if he thought it necessary to change the system in any way. The purpose of that is to ensure that the system itself is seen, and is recognised, to be beyond criticism. When that work has been concluded, we shall announce our conclusions to the House. The right hon. Gentleman and I share the same objectives upon that point also.
As for the cash for questions issue, all traditions suggest that that should be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, and there is no precedent for the Committee of Privileges not sitting in private. The reason for that is self-evidently understood by every Member of the House so that the matter may be fully dealt with. When the Committee has completed its report, the recommendations of that Committee of the House of Commons will be published and will then be debated here on the Floor of the House of Commons, where they should be.
On the first of the right hon. Gentleman's three questions, I am aware of no occasion where the question of the abuse of previous ministerial interests arises. If he wishes to give me details, I shall naturally look at what he has to say.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuit of his clear commitment to deal with the issue, there is an extremely important role for the House of Commons Privileges Committee as set up by a motion agreed in the House? Will he confirm that it is not a matter of innuendo or allegation but one of thorough investigation, which the Privileges Committee can do, and that not only the Committee's report but the evidence, in full, which the Privileges Committee obtains, will be published? Is not that an objective to be proceeded with, rather than distorted by walk-outs by Opposition right hon. and hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. For a long time we have had our own method of dealing with such issues—the Privileges Committee. When it has taken evidence and reported, it is right for the House then to take decisions. I regret very much indeed that Opposition Members have decided not to continue with their work on that Committee, because I believe that if such Committees do not operate properly, with cross-party support, that will do great damage to the House of Commons as an institution.
My hon. Friend is entirely right in all else that he says. I reiterate the absolute necessity for high standards in public life. Let me make it clear once again that where any evidence of wrongdoing is brought to me, it will be investigated, and it will be punished if that is found to be justifiable. I must make a further point upon which I believe the House would wish to reflect: any investigation must be seen to be fair. It is a fundamental part of the way in which we conduct things in the House and in the country that people are innocent until they are shown to have been guilty. I regret that, occasionally, some in the House tend to forget that fundamental part of our constitution.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how disappointed many people will be by the inadequate answers that he gave to the three specific questions put to him by the leader of the Labour party? Does not he realise that neither the House nor the people will be satisfied with the results of inquiries held in secret? Does not he understand that the interests of the country, his Government and the House would now be served by an independent and impartial re-examination of the standards that are required of those who hold public office in a modern democracy like ours?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand how the Committees of the House operate. I would have thought


that he, as a Privy Councillor, would have understood that rather better. We have had a long tradition of cross-party Committees, like the Privileges Committee, dealing with such matters. The decision of some hon. Members not to serve on that Committee is unprecedented. They should serve on it. That Committee will take evidence. It will publish its report—there will be nothing secret about it—and it will be debated here, in the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier about that. I hope that he now has heard and that he now understands. I hope that he will now continue the traditions that the House has long followed.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be widespread support throughout the country for a mandatory identity card scheme?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to consult about the possibility of an identity card scheme, either a voluntary or mandatory one. We shall wish to listen carefully to what people say in response to that consultation. There is a substantial case to be made for one, although practical difficulties must be overcome. If we have one on a smart card basis, it will allow Opposition Members to record their conservative principles on it.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAllion: Let me return the Prime Minister to the question of sleaze at the heart of government. Has he seen the astonishing report in today's press that his predecessor, Lady Thatcher, ordered GCHQ to pay foreign intelligence to spy on two members of her own Cabinet whom she suspected of disloyalty to her? [Interruption.] If only for the sake of her fellow travellers

who are still members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Cabinet, will he give the House the assurance that he, at least, has discontinued that dishonourable practice? More importantly, will he give the House the assurance that he will order a full and independent investigation of that latest allegation so that those responsible for that perversion of the democratic ideal are brought to book before the British people?

The Prime Minister: The fact that, in the middle of his question, the hon. Gentleman could not even keep a straight face shows just how seriously everybody in the House regards the absolute absurdity of that allegation. Does not it show that the present frenzy of ludicrous rumours sweeping around deserve to be investigated and then cast aside because they are total nonsense? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman illustrated the sheer absurdity of many of the things that are currently being said and apparently being taken seriously by Opposition Members. I shall give him one answer to his question on that particular allegation: it is claptrap.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always gone softly, softly in Prime Minister's questions, unlike the lot opposite.
Is my right hon. Friend sponsored by the TGWU? If not, perhaps he would like to tell me who is? Will he also confirm that clause 4 is not on our agenda and that, therefore, Babycham will not be nationalised and we shall not have to watch Bambi on the television every night?

The Prime Minister: The answer is, no I am not, but if anybody wishes to make any allegations, I am happy for the Committee of Privileges to investigate them. I trust that everyone will attend the Committee.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming business of the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 OCTOBER—Debate on the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee relating to spending plans of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, followed by a debate on the first report of the Science and Technology Committee relating to the science base and innovative and competitive technology on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Privatisation, Accountability and Bureaucracy in the National Health Service" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations.
Motion on the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations.

Motion on the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER—Debate on developments in Northern Ireland on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER—Debate on inward investment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 31 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on a subject to be announced.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 26 October to consider European Community document No. 5934/94 relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses.
[Wednesday 26 October:
European Standing Committee A—European Community document: 5934/94, Foodstuff: Particular Nutritional Uses. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 48-xix (1993-94) and HC 48-xxiii (1993-94).]
MONDAY 24 OCTOBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs Committee report and debate on Science and Technology Committee report. The relevant reports are as follows:–1)
Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on "Public Expenditure: Spending Plans of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration 1994-95 to 1996-97". House of Commons Paper No. 372, Session 1993-94. CM2685 entitled "Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1993-94, Expenditure Plans of the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, Observations by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" is also relevant. 2)
First Report from the Science and Technology Committee on "The Routes Through which the Science Base is translated into Innovative and Competitive Technology", House of Commons Paper No. 74-I, Session 1993-94. CM2659 entitled "The Routes Through which the Science Base is translated into Innovative and Competitive Technology" Government response to the First Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1993-94, Session is also relevant.
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. The relevant reports are as follows:

Reports Session 1992–1993


No.
Report Title
HC No.
Date of pub.


55
MOD: The Costs and Receipts Arising for the Gulf Conflict
729
6 October


56
Forestry Commission: Timber Harvesting and Marketing
579
7 October


57
West Midlands Regional Health Authority: Regionally Managed Services Organisation
485
25 November


58
Department of Social Security and Benefits Agency: Combating Organised Fraud
672
24 November


59
MOD: Use of Simulators in Training
680
1 December


60
Inland Revenue Inheritance Tax
688
15 December


61
Health Services for Physically Disabled People Aged 16 to 64
538
16 December


62
The Administration of Student Loans
613
8 December


63
Wessex Regional Health Authority: Regional Information Systems Plan
658
9 December

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. He will have heard the exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time. May I put it to him now that, regardless of whether Ministers resign, the allegations contained in The Guardian today are serious enough to warrant an investigation by the Committee on Privileges. While I am on the topic of the Committee on Privileges, may we expect a statement next week from the Leader of the House regarding progress on the "cash for questions" inquiry and related matters at which the Committee is looking? In particular, will the Leader of the House explain why the Committee must hear in private what we can all read for ourselves in The Sunday Times?
On a slightly more cross-party note, given the amicable discussions that have taken place between us during the summer recess, could the Leader of the House find time for the House to debate the Jopling report before the end of the Session?

Mr. Newton: Picking up the more emollient part of the hon. Gentleman's question—I am pleased to see him in his place on the Opposition Front Bench after the contribution that he has made to our discussions during the summer months—I cannot give an absolute undertaking because he and I have not had a chance to talk further since the events of yesterday. Obviously, there are some uncertainties about the precise pace at which we shall be able to proceed and precisely how long the present Session will go on. I am not in a position to resolve that uncertainty, either.
From the spirit of our discussions, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are both proceeding as constructively and speedily as we can. I think that he will accept that I have manifestly made it clear that I want to move as fast as possible. I think that that is all I can say on that matter.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the very strong convention of the House—although I appreciate that it does not appear to be universally followed, to put it mildly—that the proceedings of Select Committees are not usually discussed by members of them, let alone by Chairmen, outside the confines of a Committee until that Committee has reported.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Privileges Committee, I think it right to stick to that long-established convention. The appropriate time for debate will be when the Committee has brought a report to the House.
On the other matters raised today, the appropriate time for debate will be when a proper inquiry, of whatever kind, reaches a conclusion.

Sir Peter Emery: I want to add to what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about the Jopling report. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is still considerable pressure from the


Back Benches to move forward on that report? That being so, even if there cannot be a debate, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is possible, before the end of the Session, for a joint statement from both sides to be made on how we can proceed? I think that hon. Members deserve to know.

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot make an absolute promise to be able to respond in the way that I should like to respond, for the reasons that I explained to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I have not had the opportunity to talk to him and to repeat my point since developments in the Labour party yesterday, which leave some element of uncertainty. We both want to make progress as fast as possible. If we cannot have a debate, I shall consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion; he has certainly not been short in exerting pressure on this matter.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I recognise that these matters are not entirely under the right hon. Gentleman's control, but I want to press him for a date for the end of the Session. Is it right to assume that the working assumption is still 3 November? 
Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman had urgent words with the Foreign Secretary because of the urgent need to have a debate on the position in Hong Kong?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's latter point to my right hon. Friend's attention. On his first point, as on a number of occasions in this House there is some tension between the implicit wish to have an early date for prorogation and the pressure to put in more and more business before prorogation. I shall bear both in mind, but I cannot put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery at the moment.

Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that where the conduct of Members of the House is concerned, subsequent investigation has not always been characterised by calm detachment—something which can be discerned from the Marconi affair onwards? If the work of the Privileges Committee is to be vitiated by trench warfare of the most partisan character, will he keep his mind open to the suggestion made to him about possibly appointing a committee from outside the House to look at how we conduct ourselves?

Mr. Newton: The latter point goes well beyond my immediate responsibility as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Privileges Committee. To echo something said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I continue to hope that those hon. Members who have indicated that they do not intend to attend the Committee for the time being will consider the position that will arise in the House, in almost any of our proceedings, if people who do not get their way in a decision properly taken under the procedures of the House then decide not to take part in those procedures.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House recall that, at the end of July, many of us told him that the Privileges Committee was a rigged Committee that would collapse under the weight of its own—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to ask a business question. As the Leader of the House correctly stated, the proceedings of the

Committee at this stage are for the Committee itself, not for this Chamber. These are business questions and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of asking a question relating to next week's business.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on these matters generally next week so that we can consider the membership of the Committee, which we know was rigged by the Government with a majority of people with substantial commercial interests? Does not the Leader of the House realise that Parliament is discredited while he insists on following that course? Why does he not return to the House with a new Committee or follow the recommendations made by the Liberals, who advocated an independent arrangement?

Mr. Newton: Of course I recall what the hon. Gentleman said in the debate that we had when the Committee was established and its membership settled. I also recall what I said in responding, both as Leader of the House and as the likely Chairman of the Committee. I shall not rehearse all those comments. The view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, however strongly felt, was not accepted.
The Committee was duly appointed by the House on a resolution on the basis of all the normal rules about the balance of membership according to the forces of the various parties in the House. The Members whose names were contained in the resolution accepted their appointments to the Committee without making conditions about what sort of decisions the Committee would make on how its work should be conducted.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will there be an opportunity next week or possibly today to pay tribute to the remarkable efficiency and dedication of the police in defending our freedoms last night? I have an office overlooking St. Stephen's entrance and was most impressed at the unbelievable patience shown by the police when facing quite disgraceful provocation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: It is clear from the response to my hon. Friend that his sentiments are echoed in all parts of the House. Certainly, from what I observed, the police did an extremely good and effective job in controlling what could have become an even nastier situation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In courtesy to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman urgently correct, either now or early next week, what he said about his adherence to precedent in regarding what happens in the Select Committee on Privileges as confidential? How does he reconcile that with his decision, against all precedent, on Tuesday night to issue a press statement and hold a press briefing about the Committee's meeting on that day?

Mr. Newton: I indicated to the many journalists outside the room simply that the Committee had taken a decision to sit in private. I made no further comment about who had said what, what the voting was or anything else. It was clear that it was going to be necessary to


communicate the simple fact, and I make no apology for that judgment. I have not thought it right beyond that to discuss either the arguments or the proceedings.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the case for socialism as set out in early-day motion 1582?
[That this House believes that the best policies for Britain both now, and in the twenty-first century, would be based upon the principles laid down in Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution and recently re-affirmed by the Labour Conference, namely 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life. To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisations in the Commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the Party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries. To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations Organisation … for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.'.]
A debate would enable the country and the constituents of Sheffield, Hallam to see that the old socialist leopard still lives and that its spots are beginning to show beneath the rushed, bodged, newly launched paint job.

Mr. Newton: It certainly seems to be an attempt, through the procedures of the House, to re-insert clause 4 of the Labour party's constitution even before the party has taken it out of the constitution at Brighton or Blackpool.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to have a debate about receiving money from companies next week, as it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a narrow dividing line between taking money for questions and becoming directors of firms? It is high time that we made a decision in the House that Members of Parliament should have one job and one job only, with no conflict of interest. 
More than 200 Tory Members and a handful of Opposition Members make money on the side and cannot manage on £32,000 a year, while people outside have a job to live. It is time that Members of Parliament stopped the practice of moonlighting—only then will the Augean stables be cleaned up.

Mr. Newton: As some of my hon. Friends observed from a sedentary position during the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I presumed that the hon. Gentleman would also apply everything that he said to union sponsorships. As

long as I am Chairman of the Committee on Privileges, I do not intend to engage in such a debate on the Floor of the House. There will be a debate after a report has been produced and, in case there is any doubt, I should perhaps add that the report will be accompanied by publication of the evidence taken by the Committee.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Before we take any more lectures from hon. Gentlemen who play no part in any of the Committee structures where the House does most of its work, perhaps we should take seriously the question of full-time Members of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on this important issue because if we are not careful we shall find ourselves moving inexorably towards a category of full-time membership of the House, which would greatly change its nature—something which should not happen without a clear and conscious decision being made?

Mr. Newton: I certainly have no plans to propose such a change without a debate or, indeed, at all. I have noted my hon. Friend's words and the very thoughtful reflections that he has also offered to me in writing.

Ms Jean Corston: The Leader of the House will be aware that this is National Asthma Week. There has been a 178 per cent. increase in childhood asthma in the south-west since 1979. From a survey of schools this summer in my constituency, I discovered that one in three children at the Rosemary nursery school, which is in an area of high traffic congestion, has asthma. At a recent summer camp organised by another school, 21 of the 43 children there had asthma or respiratory problems that needed medication. When can we have a debate to discuss the health, environmental and pollution aspects of what is a major epidemic among our children?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady might perhaps have suggested that some of the points that she has raised might have been more appropriate for a health debate than the title of the debate tabled for the Opposition day next Tuesday. Leaving that aside, however, having had some experience of asthma in my family, I certainly recognise the importance of the problem, its intractability and the concerns expressed about it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will consider carefully what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on civil air transport in view of the grotesque subsidies to European state carriers such as Air France and Iberia which are blithely waved through by the European Commission, and for a debate on the urgent need for privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services?

Mr. Newton: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will be aware of the vigorous stance taken by the Government, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week. As for National Air Traffic Services, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement when he has considered the outcome of the consultation.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House press the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement next week on the transfer of the blood transfusion facility from Liverpool which is being met with almost universal opposition from people


in the area? Is not it about time that the Secretary of State for Health was accountable to the House for her actions or non-actions?

Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but, in the face of his apparent suggestion that she is unaccountable to the House, I must say that it appears that she will be here nearly all day next Tuesday because health questions will be followed by the health debate to which I have already referred.

Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in 1996 Heads of Government will hold an inter-governmental conference on the future of the European Union and the effects of Maastricht. Is he also aware that it will affect institutions such as the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and that there is real interest in their future among hon. Members of all parties? I know that my right hon. Friend cannot do so immediately, but I urge him to hold a debate on the subject in due course, as our continental partners will in their various Parliaments.

Mr. Newton: I should not want to undertake to provide time for a debate on European issues before we prorogue, but it is likely that an opportunity will arise not too long after that. I shall bear the idea in mind and, while noting my hon. Friend's request, I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done over many years for some of those institutions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Perhaps the Leader of the House has noticed that today, not for the first time, fisheries questions were totally crowded out of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Question Time. That happens because of the relatively small number of Members with fisheries interests. In view of the importance of the industry in my constituency, and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members, will the Leader of the House consider allocating perhaps 15 minutes of questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to fisheries matters?

Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of one or two examples of that practice. For reasons that the House understands, it happens with the Overseas Development Administration. However—this is an entirely serious answer to the hon. Gentleman—I think that in general, trying to divide up the work of Departments into segments and allocating bits of time to bits of their responsibilities would be a path leading to endless argument, controversy and, in the end, dissatisfaction.

Mr. Richard Tracey: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to an urgent debate on the maintenance of public order outside this place? As a London Member of Parliament, I draw his attention to the fact that, while several thousand Metropolitan policemen are employed to maintain what is certainly the important business of the House, my constituents, and people in many other London boroughs, are completely divested of the protection of the Metropolitan police, with the result that they fall prey to burglars, car thieves and muggers,

and experience various other forms of public disorder. That cannot be right and it cannot be allowed to continue. Balance is essential in such matters.

Mr. Newton: Clearly it would be vain to expect my hon. Friend's words about the practical effects of demonstrations such as that which took place last night—manifestly those words have some force—to be heeded by those who brought about the demonstration. However, my hon. Friend's remarks should certainly be borne in mind by others in our society.

Dr. Lynne Jones: In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to the national health service, does the Lord President agree that it is disgraceful that, having run down its own hospital services, making hundreds of staff redundant and closing wards, the South Birmingham health authority is spending public money flying heart patients to have their operations at an ailing private hospital in Glasgow? Will he ensure that when the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box next Tuesday, she makes a statement on that matter and on the Government's responsibility for the lack of sensible planning for health care needs in south Birmingham?

Mr. Newton: I take it that the main point of the question was contained in the last sentence—and of course I will bring what the hon. Lady said to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. As for the rest of her question, I should be reluctant to comment without knowing more about the circumstances. I imagine that the health authority was simply seeking to ensure that resources were used to the best possible effect in providing a speedy service for its patients.

Sir David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the summer recess the Child Support Agency has continued to make serious mistakes, causing real anguish to my constituents and no doubt to those of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members? If there cannot be a statement next week about the necessary reform of the Child Support Agency, can my right hon. Friend see to it that the following sentence is put into the Queen's Speech: "Urgent early measures to reform the Child Support Agency will quickly be laid before you"?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, who also spoke to me about this matter last night, will know that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. On the other hand, I did, sort of, anticipate his question. I can assure him that action is being taken to address some of the administrative problems, although that may take time. Such action is certainly going on vigorously. My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Social Security is expected to produce a further report shortly, which I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look at extremely carefully.

Mr. Max Madden: First, will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure that a statement is made, I hope next week, by the Prime Minister about the inquiry that is presently being conducted by the Cabinet Secretary? Secondly, will the Leader of the House


ensure that whatever statement is made, it explains fully what arrangement was proposed, either directly or indirectly, by Mr. A1 Fayed to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be right for me to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I am sure that as soon as he has the report, he will act in whatever way he thinks appropriate in the light of his other assurances about his determination to ensure proper standards of conduct.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in which we can discuss how a Member of Parliament can have £88,000 raised on his behalf and then not declare it in the Register of Members' Interests? Is not it scandalous that the Leader of the Opposition has not made a declaration in the Register of Members' Interests?

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a personal attack of that nature, he knows full well that it should be done by means of a substantive motion. I think that he ought to be very careful in his use of words. If he has anything to say of that nature, he must put it on the Order Paper in a substantive motion so that we may all see it.

Mr. Shaw: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, if I did not get the rules right. I thought that by calling for a debate on the issue, we might have the opportunity to air fully the issue of why it has not been declared that £88,000—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that complaints of that nature must be made to the Committee on Members' Interests. It is not for the Leader of the House to answer questions of that nature. A series of Committees has been set up to deal with all those matters and that is where the request must go. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will refer his request to the Committee.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's lofty statement about standards in public life and his attempted whitewash with secret inquiries, why cannot we have a debate next week on a basic, central question? If it takes £2,000 to get a Tory Member to ask a parliamentary question, how much does it take to get a straight answer from a Tory Government about what exactly they are going to do about it?

Mr. Newton: May I, as quietly and calmly as I can, totally reject the use of the word "whitewash" in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I thought and, I suspect, many thought—not only Conservative Members—that the Prime Minister was very straightforward in his answers this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a specific debate on family health matters so that we can discuss the wisdom of the new Liberal Democrat policy of putting 11-year-old girls on the pill without parental consent? That must undermine the family and parental influence, and it is making a laughing stock of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Newton: I have some sympathy with that. I say, with as kindly a smile as I can manage, to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)

who is, I suspect, more sensible than some of the resolutions passed at his conference, that if I had to find time to debate every dotty resolution passed at Liberal Democrat conferences, we should be here from now until Christmas.

Mr. Richard Burden: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the hospital in question, to which the West Midlands regional health authority is to shift patients, is a private hospital called Health Care International? It has already swallowed up substantial amounts of public money—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question about business? I think that we have had enough statements. We must have brisk questions and answers.

Mr. Burden: May I ask the Leader of the House to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health during next week's health debate to come to the House to make it clear that this is not a situation, which it appears to be, of the private sector gobbling up public resources and forcing my constituents and others to travel 300 miles for essential treatment?

Mr. Newton: I have made some comment on that, to which I am not going to add. It seems that the appropriate course would be for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House at the appropriate time and seek to put his question to my right hon. Friend or, for that matter, to the Secretary of State for Scotland if that is more appropriate.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Now that a public consultation has been announced into national ID cards, does my right hon. right Friend think that there should be an early opportunity for the House to debate the issues involved?

Mr. Newton: I note the request, but I am afraid that I cannot promise an early opportunity. It may be that it would be more appropriate when a Green Paper has been produced, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 1595, which relates to the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.
[That this House believes that the public is entitled to a full explanation by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare as to the circumstances surrounding the purchase by him of shares in Anglia Television; believes that Lord Archer should give such an explanation without further delay, further believes that his conduct and the handling of the investigation by the DTI has further undermined the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's insider dealing legislation; calls on the Government to introduce new legislation free from the taint of political interference; calls on the President of the Board of Trade to publish that part of the DTI report containing information provided in connection with this matter; and regrets that the facts and circumstances of this affair were not put before a jury.]


Is not there a pressing case for an early debate on the law on insider dealing, which is clearly unsatisfactory? If someone such as Lord Archer cannot be convicted, no one can.

Mr. Newton: This matter was covered in a lengthy answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday and I shall not try to add to that now.

Mr. Peter Butler: Will my right hon. Friend consider acceding to the repeated request for a debate on the matter currently before the Select Committee on Privileges, if only so that the Labour party can explain to the House its peculiar and singular view that an inquiry, the evidence of which will be published in full, the report of which will be published in full; both of which will be subsequently debated in public on the Floor of the House is none the less "secret"?

Mr. Newton: No, I cannot explain that and I have not yet heard an explanation of it.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The Leader of the House will be aware that I wrote to him and that we had a friendly conversation about extending the postage and telephone facilities of hon. Members to cover the European Union. The price of stamps is just the same
–5p—and the calls are no more expensive. Given the great interest of constituents in the European questions coming up in the next two years, for hon. Members to be fully informed, that right should be extended. I should like an assurance that the matter will be considered seriously before the end of the Session.

Madam Speaker: That is a very good question indeed, but it is not a business question. It is a question which the hon. Gentleman might put to the Leader of the House when he answers questions on those matters. The hon. Gentleman should reserve the question for that time.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate for next week on the way in which local authorities, which now have responsibility for traffic management and parking, are managing those responsibilities, so that I can highlight the enormous inefficiency of the Labour-controlled Ealing council and its aggravation of the people of Ealing by the inept way in which it is discharging those responsibilities?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I suppose that I look forward to learning week by week of the iniquities of the Ealing borough council, which my hon. Friend exposes with such assiduousness.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will there be an opportunity next week to clarify whether, officially or unofficially, by minute or by telephone, there was any approach from the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Clive Whitmore, to the then Prime Minister, expressing disquiet about the commercial activities of Mark Thatcher?

Mr. Newton: I think that I can only take note of that question and I shall obviously consider the point when I have an opportunity.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we perhaps have a debate next week on extravagance in local government expenditure, such as the expenditure of £169,000 on a new porch for the Gravesham civic centre,

commissioned by the Labour party at the expense of scrapping a substantial part of its contribution to the Meopham sports hall and scrapping a refurbishment of shopping parades, where real people go?

Mr. Newton: It appears that it is trying to compete with Ealing.

Mr. David Winnick: If there is to be a statement early next week, as I hope that there will be, on what is to happen on the Privileges Committee, will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that if we are to continue to regulate our own affairs—unlike the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who spoke earlier, I am very much in favour of our continuing to do so—it must be seen that we carry out our regulations and investigations in a public way? What may have happened in the past does not necessarily justify what should happen now and in the future. The public expect that a Parliament which is concerned, as we must be, with our own reputation in fighting corruption inside Westminster, should be willing to inquire into those matters in a public way and not simply wait for a report that is being drawn up and discussed in secret and then debate that on the Floor of the House. The reputation of the House is very much at stake.

Mr. Newton: That leads me to echo what I said earlier. It seems to me that a continuation of the practice of the House regulating its own affairs in the way that it has for many years, and which I think would be widely accepted, depends on people being willing to co-operate—without declining to co-operate if a decision goes in a way they do not like—with those procedures properly constituted by the House.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last night there was a serious attack on our parliamentary democracy by a howling mob which prevented elected Members from reaching the House to attend to their constituents' business. Can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so that it can be made clear that the right to protest does not include the right to coerce or intimidate or the right to bring the life of a great city to a standstill and prevent ambulances, fire engines and police cars from attending emergencies? During that debate, perhaps we could consider whether mass demonstrations should be banned completely in urban areas.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is sitting beside me and he will no doubt have heard that suggestion. With regard to a debate, we are about to begin a second day of debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I cannot promise an immediate opportunity for a further day's debate of that kind.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or an early debate next week on the preferred bidders for the coal industry? I listened to the President of the Board of Trade two weeks ago when he announced at the Conservative party conference who was buying the pit in my constituency. To date, I have received no news about that in the House, I have not had a chance to question the matter in the House, and I have not received written confirmation of


the matter from the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that we can have an early debate on the matter next week.

Mr. Newton: I will bring that complaint to the attention of my right hon. Friend. However, the fact that by January we expect around 30 of the former British Coal mines to have transferred to new private sector owners since the coal review in 1993 represents welcome progress.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Leader of the House at least tell us whether there will be an early ministerial statement about the unfortunate events which took place outside the House last night? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) suffered a very serious injury when trying to enter the House merely to record his vote? What discussions have there been with the Metropolitan police to ensure that hon. Members have proper access to this place?

Mr. Newton: There are three points here. First, I would like to express on my behalf, and I am sure on behalf of others, our sympathy to the hon. Member for Caernarfon. Secondly, discussions between the authorities of the House, in particular the Serjeant at Arms, and the police are not something I would wish to enter into across the Floor of the House. Thirdly, I must say frankly that I think that in this context, as in some others, to give those who caused such disruption last night the additional satisfaction of diverting the proceedings of this Chamber by the publicity of ministerial statements would actually encourage them rather than the reverse.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Department of the Environment published a paper in August about the disposal of low-grade nuclear waste in municipal sites, many of which were in urban areas. I have two requests. First, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that paper is available in the Vote Office because it is not available at the moment? Secondly, may we have a debate led by the Department of the Environment on the disposal of low-grade nuclear waste?

Mr. Newton: On the question of a debate, I must give my standard answer and say that I cannot give a promise of that at the moment. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I will certainly look into what he said.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that I have to return to the events of last night, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in Germany the kind of demonstrations that occurred here last night are banned from within 1 km of the Bundestag? Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing such restrictions here?

Mr. Newton: I would not want to add off the cuff to what I have said, but I note my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the biggest political scandals, which strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy, is that millions of people are

missing from electoral registers. The situation has become worse in recent years. When can we have a full debate in Government time to discuss that serious matter?

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise a debate, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who I think I am right in saying would be responsible for electoral registration matters, has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1586. [That this House condemns the proposals of the National Blood Authority which would result in the closure of Liverpool's Blood Transfusion Unit with the loss of some 100 jobs; expresses its anxiety that the health of Liverpool citizens would be put at risk whenever there was an urgent need for a blood transfusion, and that it would also result in the loss of a training centre for the study of haematology; notes that over 100,000 Merseysiders have signed a petition objecting to the proposals; commends the Liverpool Echo for its part in opposition to these ill-thought out measures; rejects any diminution of blood transfusion services on Merseyside; and calls on the National Blood Authority to withdraw its proposals.] I tabled the motion and it refers to the misconceived proposals of the National Blood Authority to close the Liverpool blood transfusion unit. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is unsatisfactory? It is a matter of life or death for many people in Liverpool and in the north-west of England and, rather than being subsumed in a general debate on Tuesday, it requires a specific statement by the Secretary of State so that it can be debated.

Mr. Newton: This is the second time today that the matter has been raised in respect of Liverpool. As before, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health sees what is said.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the gathering and publication of unemployment statistics in this country? Has he seen today's report in The Scotsman analysing the Government's own statistics and showing that there has been a 500,000 increase in the number of people registering for income support as disabled and sick, that 2 million are denied the right to be on the unemployment register by being disabled and sick, and that there has been a 63 per cent. increase in such registration in the south-east of England, where the recession is biting deepest? It is important not only that the people have a lead from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to be honest in Government, but that we be honest with the people. Is not it time to debate the real unemployment statistics so that, when we know and accept the problem, we can jointly try to solve it, instead of trying to deceive the people?

Mr. Newton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not seen the report in The Scotsman, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman had a


substantial opportunity to make such points during debate on the Bill in respect of invalidity benefit that was discussed in the House earlier this Session.

Mr. John McAllion: Following the announcement this week by the Home Secretary that an additional £2 million is to be made available for closed-circuit television schemes in England and Wales and the failure of the Secretary of State for Scotland to say anything about an equivalent spend in Scotland, may we have a statement early next week by the Secretary of State for Scotland on whether money will be made available for such schemes in Scotland, so that Scottish Members can satisfy themselves that the Government regard tackling crime in Scotland just as seriously as they do in England and Wales?

Mr. Newton: That is a question which the hon. Gentleman could put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland next Wednesday.

Mr. James Wallace: Is the Leader of the House aware that, last week, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was a rule of the House that a Bill to set up a parliament for Scotland or Wales could not be guillotined? Can he confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland got it wrong, or is it his intention to bring in such an amendment to our Standing Orders?

Mr. Newton: As there is no question of the Government's bringing in such a Bill, I do not think that the question arises.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Would it be possible to have a debate next week to examine the way in which early-day motions are tabled? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1616.
[That this House notes the allegations made against the honourable Members for Tatton and Beaconsfield, respectively, in connection with the tabling of parliamentary questions referred to in The Guardian for Thursday 20th October; and, in the light of the allegations in that article, calls upon the Prime Minister to appoint an independent commission of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary with full powers to enquire into and report upon ethics and standards in British political life.]
That motion was tabled by the Liberal Democrats last night, and it refers to the article in The Guardian today. One of the questions that I should like to ask in such a debate is whether the effect of that early-day motion was to confer parliamentary privilege on the article and, in the process, possibly deprive an hon. Member of effective action in the courts. If so, would not the House want to debate that matter? Is it right that a newspaper can be given such protection by hon. Members in what amounts to a sleazy deal?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to say whether the motion was tabled before or after the earliest editions of The Guardian were available, and I would not want to speculate on that. Also, because of the subject matter of the early-day motion, again I would not want to add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on such matters about an hour ago.

Points of Order

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the circumstances surrounding the injury to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) when he attempted to come to the House last night to register his vote at about 10 pm. You will have the full circumstances surrounding that incident, and I do not wish to dwell on them; save to say that I am pleased to tell the House that although my hon. Friend suffered an injury, he was released from hospital last night. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for making urgent inquiries about him, and he is grateful for your concern. I accompanied my hon. Friend last night, and we were accompanied by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
I want to look at the more general issue that arises out of the incident. Hon. Members who have offices in the Norman Shaw building have difficulty in coming to the House to vote, even forgetting the incident last night, because the underpass at Westminster is closed. That means that we must go into the main entrance of Westminster station, and that can be blocked by a considerable number of people even late at night. 
We had to cross the road and we came through the normal entrance of the House along Parliament street. The difficulty that we encountered in Parliament street was that there was a cordon of police officers across the pavement which prevented access by hon. Members. Where police officers are on duty, clearly expecting a Division to take place at some time during the evening, I would expect them to clear a path for hon. Members to come in through the gates. That is the issue, Madam Speaker. How can we be absolutely assured that such an incident will not happen again—that a clear path will be made so that hon. Members can come safely to vote?

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) when the worrying accident took place. Whatever other unacceptable incidents happened last night, the accident was not the direct result of the demonstrators. The development of both Millbank and the Norman Shaw building is creating problems. In this case, the problem was that the entrance to the Westminster subway was closed. The fact that we knew that the entrance was closed led us to come through the Carriage Gates. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that it was impossible to get through the main Carriage Gates last night because of a large cordon of police.

Madam Speaker: I made inquiries and found that access to Westminster underground station was open yesterday evening. If hon. Members who were coming to the House had proceeded as though they were passengers to Westminster underground, they would have been able to use the subway to the House. As hon. Members know, the steps from Victoria Embankment to the subway are closed. That is the responsibility of London Underground and Members have been notified of that on the all-party Whip.

I very much regret the problems caused to the hon. Member for Caernarfon yesterday evening. I telephoned him today; he is in considerable pain, but I gave him the good wishes of the House. We wish that he will be back here soon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I will draw the attention of the Serjeant at Arms to what hon. Members have said on this matter. He will look at these matters, because what has been said is valuable. The objective last night was to see that the Sessional Orders were enforced, that public disorder was prevented and that any offenders were arrested. I have strong views that violence and vandalism will not be tolerated wherever they rear their ugly heads. I believe that last night, despite some of the problems that the police had, there was a high standard of policing. Perhaps we might leave the matter at that.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I was one of those who were prevented from getting into the House from 7 Millbank. Happily, I came to no harm. However, one consequence of what happened to me was that I saw, for a long time and at close quarters, exactly what was taking place in Millbank which was the centre of the disturbance. One of the things that I saw was very great restraint by the police under enormous provocation. When you make further inquiries, Madam Speaker, perhaps you would tell the Commissioner that the majority of hon. Members admire what the police did last night and are grateful to them.

Mr. Max Madden: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will understand and accept that any allegation made against any Member of the House inevitably damages the reputations of all Members and of the whole House. You were elected by the whole House to protect and uphold the rights and reputation of the House.
I would ask you to reflect on a suggestion that I wish to make. We seem to be facing an impasse when it comes to the ability of the House properly and effectively to investigate complaints made against Members, so I wonder whether you would be willing to consider convening a meeting with representatives of all parties to discuss what can be done to find a resolution of this impasse.
I have been sceptical about the ability of the House to investigate complaints effectively ever since I served on the Committee that inquired into the relationships between the late John Poulson and Members of the House. I have considerable sympathy with suggestions that we need to find a new way of dealing with such matters. I ask you again to reflect on whether you, as Speaker, might convene such a committee or group—call it what you like—consisting of Members and non-Members, who could investigate complaints against Members of the House.
It would also be extremely useful if the group could draw up a list of principles governing standards in public life—we have no such principles at present, and I do not believe that there is time for a royal commission to consider them again.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider these matters seriously, since I know of your deep and genuine concern for the reputation of the House, which I believe is in grave danger of doing itself considerable damage.

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, I have no authority to take the type of action suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but I do take these matters seriously and I will look at all that he has said this afternoon. 
There is no problem about raising matters of complaint. In the statement that I made on 12 July, when I granted precedence to a motion relating to a complaint now before the Committee on Privileges, I made it very clear that the Committee
will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it".—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
I worded that statement carefully. So if there is evidence relating to the matters that are now being raised and which have been raised this afternoon, it can be submitted to the Privileges Committee, which is free to consider the evidence. There really is no need for any further action by the House to bring that about; but I take seriously everything that has been said this afternoon and the points that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has just put to me.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Before Clause 134

Lords amendment: No. 125, insert the following new clause—Criminal Injuries Compensation—
(". In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and
(b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 175.

Mr. Howard: The aim of the amendment is to require the Government to drop the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation, introduced on 1 April this year, which provides a simpler, faster and more easily understandable service for victims. The amendment would reinstate the old system by bringing into force the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which would make the old criminal injuries compensation scheme statutory. Hon. Members will recall that the House firmly rejected a similar amendment to the Bill on Report in March.
Let me remind the House briefly of the background to the scheme, and why we changed it in the way that we did. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was introduced in 1964, following public concern that something should be done for the innocent victims of violent crime. The scheme was a new and experimental venture and, after alternative options had been considered, it was decided that compensation should be assessed on the basis of common law damages, since that made use of existing legal expertise. The level of demand was unknown—although I suspect that it is fair to say that no one foresaw an operation on anything like the scale that we see today.

Madam Speaker: Order. It was remiss of me not to mention that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Howard: As the House knows, provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the old scheme to be made statutory, but those provisions were not brought into force. First, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who was and is the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, requested a postponement so that the board could concentrate its efforts on dealing with the large backlog of unresolved cases. Shortly afterwards, it became increasingly evident that the old scheme needed fundamental revision.
When the old scheme was introduced 30 years ago, the level of crime—not just in this country, of course—was much lower than it is today. In the first full year of the scheme, 1965-66, there were just 2,500 claims, 1,164 awards were made and a total of £400,000 was paid in compensation.
Since then, the increase in expenditure on compensation has been relentless. Twenty years ago, in 1973-74, the board received 12,000 claims, made 9,000 awards and paid out £4 million—still a modest amount by current standards. Ten years ago, in 1983-84, there were 32,000 new applications, 21,000 awards and a total of £33 million was paid out in compensation. By last year, however, there were 73,000 new applications, 41,000 awards and £165 million was paid in compensation.
That increase in expenditure was not merely a result of the increase in the number of claims. During the past 10 years, average awards have increased by 5 per cent. a year more than inflation, almost doubling in real terms since 1979.
If the old scheme had continued, by the turn of the century, the annual cost of compensation would have been in excess of £500 million. That rate of growth is simply not sustainable; nor do I think it appropriate for a state scheme funded by the taxpayer. Those rapidly escalating costs—

Mrs. Barbara Roche: In the light of what the Home Secretary has just told the House, will he and the Government come absolutely clean with the public and admit what they have never admitted before— that the whole purpose of the changes to the scheme is to save money? The changes have absolutely nothing to do with offering a better service to the victims of crime.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is wrong on at least two counts. First, it is not true that we denied that savings played an important part in the decision. They are not the only reason, because we have other important reasons, but savings are one reason and they are an important one, so the hon. Lady is wrong on that count. She is also wrong to suggest that savings are the only reason. Her protestations would carry a little more weight if those on the Opposition Front Bench had undertaken—when it was suggested to them on the last occasion that we discussed such matters on the Floor of the House—to reinstate the old scheme if they ever found themselves in government. They have consistently refused to give that undertaking, and without it the hon. Lady's protestations and those of her hon. Friends carry no weight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Excuse me for intervening for the first time during the Bill. I have received representations on the question of criminal injuries from the Law Society of Scotland, where the law is a little different. I am not asking the Home Secretary to answer off the top of his head what are, frankly, complex representations. Because of the differences in Scottish law, all I ask is that the subject is dealt with. Can we tell the society that there will be reflections on its very real concerns?

Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had the concerns of the Law Society of Scotland drawn to his attention, as I have had drawn to my attention the concerns of the Law


Society for England and Wales. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will address those concerns in what he regards as the most appropriate way.
The rapidly escalating costs highlight the stark fact that the old scheme offered no mechanism for exercising any control over costs. That was not the fault of the board. It was simply charged with administering the scheme—a job it has managed with considerable credit. Also, of course, in earlier years, when costs were relatively small, the need for control was not so apparent, but the rapid growth in expenditure on the scheme in recent years makes change imperative so that costs can be brought under control.
4.30 pm
Let me stress here just how generous our scheme is. It is by far the most generous anywhere in the world. In the most recent year for, which comparative figures are available, Great Britain paid out £165 million in compensation; France paid out £27 million, and Germany just £7 million. In fact, we pay out far more compensation than all the other European countries added together. We even paid out more last year than the United States of America—not more per head, but more in total—despite the fact that the United States has, of course, a vastly greater population, a much higher gross national product, much more violent crime and a very active victim support lobby.
The tariff scheme will remain one of the most generous anywhere. Under the new scheme, 60 per cent. of beneficiaries will get as much as or more than they would have done under the old scheme.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that one of the failures of the present scheme is the inordinate delay in making payments to the victims of crime? When I was in practice, a matter of two years' delay was in no sense an exception and, as a constituency Member of Parliament, a case was brought to my attention recently of a delay of seven years in making payments. Will not the move to a tariff system ensure that we produce sums of money for victims more quickly than now?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which I shall come in just a moment—indeed, even sooner than that.
Having pointed out that 60 per cent. or more of beneficiaries would get as much or more under the new scheme as under the old, I wish to add precisely the point made by hon. Friend; they will get their money more quickly. Of course it is true—I do not seek to hide the fact—that some people will get less. But most awards are comparatively small, and the vast majority are under £5,000.

Mr. David Sumberg: I appreciate that, if 60 per cent. of beneficiaries will get the same, 40 per cent. will get less. That worries me, in the sense that they will be the headline cases. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address—either now or later in his speech—the proposal from the Law Society which would deal with

smaller claims on a tariff basis, but which would perhaps avoid the dangers that I have mentioned with the big claims?

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point now. If he will permit me to correct him, it is not true that 60 per cent. of claimants will get the same. Sixty per cent. of claimants will get the same or more, and many will indeed get more.
The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers and which was advanced by the Law Society is a hybrid one, which would provide a tariff for relatively small claims, and the same kind of scheme as we have at the moment for larger claims. It would involve endless difficulties at the demarcation line and endless challenges from those who felt that they were being hard done by because their claim was being dealt with under the tariff and not on the basis of compensation.
We have looked carefully at the possibility of such a hybrid scheme, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the practical difficulties which it would involve would be insurmountable.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I always understood that it was Conservative policy that we should aspire to the very best and not reach for the lowest common denominator. Why does that principle not apply in this case?

Mr. Howard: It does not apply for the reasons that I have given. There is no question of going for the lowest common denominator, and I am afraid that the hon. Lady's question bears no relationship to the realities of the issues before us.

Mr. Michael Shersby: The report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the year ending 31 March 1992 referred to four cases in which people received payments in excess of £500,000—awards of £689,000, £645,000, £568,000 and £521,000. They obviously involved serious cases, and were perhaps exceptional.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend telling the House, however, that, with the introduction of the new tariff scheme, in that kind of case, where the individual has probably lost all opportunity ever to pursue his lawful occupation again, the person would have to rely on the tariff payment and the available state benefits to top up benefit received, rather than on the payments that he would have received under the old scheme? Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has left out one important factor—there is, of course, the ceiling of £250,000 under the new scheme. In addition to that, a number of other payments and a number of other sources of help are available. For example, one of the elements that is taken into account when deciding compensation in serious cases is the provision of private health care for someone who suffered a serious injury, but the health care provided by the national health service is always available to that individual.
My hon. Friend also referred, quite correctly, to all the other state benefits that are available and which will continue to be available. It is also important to bear in mind occupational benefits, which now assume such an important significance and will, of course, continue to be available.

It is important to remember that, under the present scheme, an offset operates in relation to occupational benefits and the awards made. Some of the figures that are cited, which seem to demonstrate that large losses will be suffered as compared to the awards made under the old scheme, do not tell the whole story. All the factors I have listed must be taken into account.
It is also not entirely irrelevant to remember that some of the apparently worst cases would arise in respect of people who have high incomes, and therefore high loss of earnings claims. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone with high earnings is in a position to make provision of his own for the kind of contingency that we are discussing. Additional help is available in a number of different ways, some of which were identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).

Mr. David Trimble: I should like to take up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's final point about the large sums of compensation that are often paid to people with high earnings. Such people often also have high liabilities. If a ceiling is put on the amount of compensation paid, does he accept that one will inevitably encounter cases where the amount of compensation paid will be much below the loss the person has suffered and possibly also below his commitments? Does he accept that that will cause grave financial hardship to that person? Such cases may be rare, but they will inevitably occur. If the Government stick to the tariff system, they are committing themselves to committing serious injustices to some people.

Mr. Howard: I simply do not accept that it will lead to injustice. In the rare cases of injury to people with high earnings, they will know that if they suffer some accident through no one's fault—so they are unable to establish a claim of negligence—and which is not the result of any criminal act, they could find themselves in a serious financial position. We could all have an accident at any time that stopped us from working for the rest of our lives. People with high earnings—the category that we are currently discussing—know that it is possible for them to make provision against such a contingency. Just as it is reasonable to expect them to make provision for such a contingency in respect of accidental injury, so it is reasonable also to expect them to make a provision in respect of an injury that results from a criminal attack, rather than expect the taxpayer to underwrite the consequences of that contingency.
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about a situation in which everyone, whatever the source of their misfortune and whatever the source of the contingency that places him or her in that difficulty, is automatically entitled to compensation in every respect from the taxpayer. That is why, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I do not accept that the change that we are making leads to injustice.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Home Secretary was saying that people on high incomes would have made provision, presumably through some sort of occupational scheme, for such a contingency. However, in this case we are discussing criminal injury, so the fact that someone could be injured through other mechanisms is not relevant in this case. Would not the age at which that injury occurs make a significant

difference to the extent to which the provision is effective? Will not a significant number of people with serious problems be gravely affected and their resources gravely reduced by the changes which the Home Secretary is introducing?

Mr. Howard: In almost all cases, people in that position will have occupational benefits—usually substantial occupational benefits. Those are what they should look to in the first instance for compensation, and I believe that they will do so. If that factor is taken into account, the complaint about the provisions of the new scheme is seen, on examination, to have much less substance than seems to be the case at first sight.
I now turn to the other main reason for reform. Hon. Members may recall that the Home Affairs Committee, in its 1990 report on the administration of the board, was highly critical of delays in the processing of claims. Undoubtedly, one reason for that was the enormous increase in business, which swallowed up the considerable staff increases made at the board. Staff numbers had more than doubled between 1978-79 and 1988-89, to a total of 312. The figure has since increased to no less than 460, and that does not include the 44 members of the board.
Assuming that numbers of claims continue to grow, we could only expect further massive staff increases and corresponding increases in administrative costs to run the old scheme. The alternative would be ever-lengthening delays. I do not think that the House would regard either option as acceptable.

Mr. Peter Butler: I echo the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) concerning delays. When I was in practice, delays of two years were considered not to be delays but swiftly-dealt-with applications. Worse, the Opposition seem to think that the present scheme is not far short of perfection. It is not. It is exceedingly flawed, as my right hon. and learned Friend says.
One of the flaws is that the scheme was arbitrary in its application, so that someone with a previous conviction—I recall a case in which the person was convicted 15 years previously and had never reoffended—could still be ruled out of the scheme and receive nothing when, for 15 years, he or she had been a perfectly respectable member of the community. That effect needs to be remembered.
The scheme was not good and had to be changed, and I commend the changes.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The point that he raises is right.

Mr. Alun Michael: May I correct one inaccuracy in the intervention of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Butler), for the benefit of the Home Secretary? There is no suggestion from this side of the House that the present scheme cannot be improved. We have always argued for change, in respect both of speeding up judgments and of making them more consistent. Our argument is simply that the cut in the availability of compensation to victims of the most horrendous crimes does not have to come with that improvement in the scheme.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman failed to give the undertaking to which I referred in answering a question from his hon. Friend earlier in our proceedings.

Notwithstanding what I have just said about how the board deals with claims, its efficiency has improved considerably with increasing use of information technology and streamlined management procedures. But the very terms of the old scheme—being based on common law damages—militated against more speedy resolution of cases. As a result of its complexities, a small industry has grown up around the scheme, in which ever more subtle calculations and fine judgments about medical prognoses are produced by applicants' lawyers or other representatives, engaging the board in equally time-consuming labour.
I do not believe that that was the vision of the scheme's originators, or that it works to the general benefit of those the scheme is meant to help—the victims of crime. What is needed is a simple, user-friendly service that gets the money to the beneficiaries as quickly as possible and enables them to put the incident behind them and get on with their lives. That is exactly what the tariff scheme aims to do.
Our White Paper, which was published last December, explained that there is no objectively "right" sum of money which can compensate an individual for the pain and hurt suffered as a result of criminal injury. Under the tariff scheme, therefore, we are not aiming to provide finely judged "compensation", in the sense of trying, in some way, to put the victim back in the position that he or she would have been in had the attack not taken place. Instead, we are providing a lump sum payment—and a generous one—in tangible recognition of society's concern for the blameless victim of a crime of violence.
Under the tariff scheme, therefore, victims with comparable injuries will be treated in the same way. They will have a good idea in advance of how much compensation they are likely to get. That was far from the case under the old scheme. It gives the tariff scheme the advantages of simplicity and transparency. It will be easier for victims to understand, and simpler and less expensive to administer. Nevertheless, as the tariff levels have been based on nearly 20,000 recent awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, they reflect what actually happened in practice under the old common law damages scheme.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary is explaining the simplicity of the scheme from his point of view. Will he explain how often and under what circumstances he expects the level of the tariffs to be uprated? Clearly, with inflation they will lose their value. What will be the basis for uprating the tariffs?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question, with which I shall deal towards the end of my remarks this afternoon. I accept that that matter has given rise to some concern.

We have left the basic rules for eligibility largely unchanged, so anyone who might have expected an award under the old scheme should be eligible under the new tariff scheme.
I must emphasise that we are not in the business of change for its own sake. We recognise what is valuable and do not lightly alter it. We have changed the scheme because it was essential to do so.
We are sure that our new tariff scheme is the right way forward, but, as we made clear on several occasions previously, we shall monitor its working very closely. Its terms are not immutable. We shall continue to listen to the views of responsible people and practitioners and, if the scheme can be refined or improved in the light of experience, we shall not hesitate to make the necessary changes.
I was just asked by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) what the arrangements are for reviewing the tariff bands. As I have said, we shall keep all aspects of the tariff scheme under review, but I can tell the House—this point has given rise to particular concern on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—that our intention is to review the tariff bands every three years.
I also assure the House that, once the new scheme has settled down and any necessary adjustments or refinements have been made, we shall aim to put it on a statutory basis as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. But we must of course first be satisfied that the scheme is working as effectively as possible.
Finally, I stress again that reversion to the old scheme, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve, is simply not a viable option. No responsible Government can allow a situation to continue in which costs grow so rapidly and in a way that cannot be checked.
For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before responding to the Home Secretary, I want to refer to something that arose after he had begun his speech. I was amazed to hear the suggestion that we are dealing with a matter of privilege. Surely that cannot be. It involves no change to spending under the existing scheme and under existing legislation, so there cannot be any question of additional spending. The Government want to cut spending without the support and scrutiny of the House.
There is a question whether the Government's action is legal. Permission has been given for judicial review of the Home Secretary's actions. I appreciate that it would be convenient for the Government if the matter were to be dealt with under privilege, but there has been no previous suggestion of that during our many months of debate and in the long period during which there has been notice of the likelihood of the matter being referred back by the House of Lords.
Obviously, it is impossible to deal with the matter fully and to challenge the ruling on the hoof. I simply give notice of our belief that the ruling that it is a matter of privilege should be set aside. We want to put forward reasoned arguments on that point at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The advice that I have received is that the House authorities advise that Lords amendment No. 125 raises questions of common privilege because the legal position under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which activates the statutory scheme by order, is proposed to be changed so that the scheme comes directly into force. An option to spend money is replaced by an obligation. Perhaps the hon.


Gentleman would like to reflect on that. I am happy to give him a copy of that ruling. I hope that he will now respond to the Home Secretary's opening speech.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first opportunity we have had to hear that explanation. I believe that the ruling is open to challenge and argument, and we shall seek to do that in the most appropriate way. We will seek guidance on how to do it outside the debate, so that we do not delay it further.
The motion illustrates better than anything else the deep hypocrisy at the heart of the Conservative party—a party led by a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who are ready to pay lip service to the claims of victims and to cry crocodile tears, while being willing to conspire to slash the level of compensation available to the victims of the most vicious and disabling crimes of violence.
The Home Secretary claims that the Government are acting in the interests of victims. He says that the present system involves delay and that a tariff system will speed up the payment of cash to victims. That is a lame attempt to stave off criticism. It should not be beyond the wit of a half-competent Minister to devise a scheme that pays out quickly on simple cases but allows fair and generous settlements when the injury and loss are great. Ending delay gives no excuse for the cut.
Let us consider the scale of opposition from, and outrage felt by, those who have first-hand knowledge of the way in which the cut will damage those whose lives have already been devastated by violent crime, and then let us consider the impact on real people. The opposition to the cut includes the House of Lords, the Police Federation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Fire Brigades Union and the Law Society, not to mention Victim Support and the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Why will Ministers not listen to that mass of informed and authoritative opinion? Let us listen to the strength of that authoritative opinion. In the debate in the other place on 2 March, Lord Carlisle, the chairman of the CICB, said that, in the board's unanimous view, the proposed tariff scheme was fundamentally flawed, manifestly unfair and a retrograde step.
Victim Support described the changes as hasty and ill thought out. Its director said on 23 February:
We are shocked at what Government is proposing. Many people will lose out significantly in future. I find it amazing that the Government can introduce such sweeping changes having taken no external advice. We are calling on the Government to suspend their plans and instigate a proper review of the way in which victims are compensated for violent crime.
Did the Government listen? Did they institute a proper review? Did they open their proposals to objective scrutiny? No, they did not.
Let us consider the actual impact on real individuals. I ask hon. Members on both sides to remember that the pain of such incidents of violence—which often devastate a life for ever—is invisible and unreal until the victim is someone you know and love, or even yourself. The first case I shall cite is that of a London Underground booking clerk who was the victim of armed robbery twice in the space of seven days. In the first, a gun was pointed directly at him. In the second, five shotgun and pistol

rounds were fired during the robbery. The man was unable to return to work and he lost his job. He is now in low-paid employment.
As a side issue, a complicating factor was that the man had been present at the King's Cross fire disaster, and was therefore already suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, it was the two armed robberies that caused his retirement. The claim was finalised a few weeks ago with an award of £73,000. Under the new tariff scheme, he would have been awarded £7,500—one tenth of the present award. Independent research shows that the changes proposed by the Government would involve many victims losing by many thousands of pounds.
I shall give two further examples. The first is a female psychiatric nursing sister aged 35 at the date of the hearing. She was assaulted by a patient and suffered extensive injury. She was assessed as 15 per cent. disabled for life and unfit for any work. The award, including an assessment for loss of future earnings and the future cost of home help, was £126,943. Under the Home Secretary's proposal, she would get just £5,000.
The second case is that of a male police officer aged 34 at the time of the award. He was assaulted and sustained serious back injuries. He was unable to sit, stand or walk for long periods, and he was unable to carry out heavy tasks involving lifting or carrying. He retired on a medical pension. He was awarded £121,000 to cover loss of future earnings. Under the Government's proposal, he would get just £7,500.
We are facing a treble whammy. We are hit by crime, which has doubled under this Government—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Michael: I shall just finish the point, as I think it is one to which the Home Secretary might well wish to respond. As I said, we are hit by crime, which has doubled under this Government; we now have to pay VAT on home and car insurances, which have shot up to cover the cost of crime; and now the Government want to steal compensation from the victims of some of the most violent and horrific crimes. I am happy to allow the Home Secretary to intervene to respond to that point.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must not convey a misleading impression. It is quite wrong to suggest, for example, that the police officer in the case that he quoted would be limited to £7,500 compensation under the scheme—assuming that to be the right figure. He would be entitled to his average pensionable pay plus a gratuity of five times the amount of his annual pensionable pay. Therefore, he would have a gratuity of five times his annual pensionable pay and a pension of 85 per cent. of his annual pensionable pay. It would be quite wrong to give the impression that the police officer would be left with £7,500 alone.
Similar points can be made about the other examples the hon. Gentleman cited. Serious issues are at stake relating to this change, and it would be wrong to deal with them on the basis of a wholly misleading impression, which is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to convey.

Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary well knows that I am not conveying a misleading impression. I am comparing the figures that are available under the current system with what would apply if the Home Secretary has his way.


I want to bring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the comments of a police officer who bravely agreed to join me to publicise the effect of the change on any of his colleagues who might share his experience—not because he wants to support us or to make a political point, but because he is concerned about his colleagues who will be damaged if they have experiences similar to his. He said that nothing could bring back his health or the job he loved or, indeed, the opportunity to participate in sport, which had been very important in his life; but he doubted whether he could have survived the last couple of years if he had not had the level of criminal injury compensation that was awarded to him under the present scheme. That is accurate, and it is the argument that we are advancing. I noticed that the Home Secretary did not seek to respond to my accusation that the Government had given us a treble whammy.

Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend has spoken of the 40 per cent. of people who are likely to lose under the Government's scheme. That figure has not been challenged by the Home Secretary or anyone else. If anyone is dissatisfied with the tariff settlement that he or she is offered under the Government's scheme, is there any right of appeal to an independent organisation with a right to vary any tariff offer?

5 pm

Mr. Michael: That is the problem. As I said, it should not be beyond the wit of a half-competent Minister to come up with a system that includes the benefits of a tariff—preferably better calculated than the one offered—and also enables specific circumstances to be taken into account, either immediately or on appeal. My hon. Friend is right. The Home Secretary could hardly deny the extent to which people will lose. Within the 40 per cent. of people who would lose as a result of the Government's new scheme would be those victims of the most horrific attacks and those on whom the effect of the change would be the most devastating.
In view of the Home Secretary's intervention, I should say that, under the old scheme, in the case I mentioned, even after the victim's pension is deducted from his earnings loss, the total of past and future loss is more than ten times the award under the new scheme. That is the honest answer, and I hope that the Home Secretary will review his figures and the facts in the case.
The Lords amendment brings into force the criminal injuries compensation scheme contained in section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It ensures that the current scheme is made statutory, and it throws out the Government's proposed scheme.
The Government's proposal replaces a scheme based on individual assessment of the loss to the victim with one based on a crude tariff. Unlike the current system, the new scheme will make no allowance for the victim's loss of earnings, medical expenses or structural changes to his or her house necessitated by the injury—we should remember the horrendous nature of some of the injuries. But those elements are vital for a fair system of compensation.
Other examples abound. An attack left a victim with a brain injury requiring continuous care day and night. Under the present system, the compensation is £500,000;

under the new proposals it would be just £40,000. The new scheme would remove the dependency award in fatal cases, which would result in greatly reduced compensation for some families who have suffered a bereavement. For example, the woman with two children who saw her husband dying on her doorstep after a stabbing received £137,000 in 1993; under the Government's proposals she would receive just £17,500, which is outrageous.
It is precisely those victims who suffer the worst injuries who will be most heavily penalised under the new proposals. The Government are letting down those victims and the public, and, in addition, they are letting down public servants such as police officers, nurses and firefighters, who risk so much in our service and who will be shoddily treated if the Government get their way.
The Home Secretary should recognise, even at this late stage, that the new scheme is misguided, and should withdraw his opposition to the Lords amendment. That would still allow him to bring forward changes, but would allow him to seek the approval of this House and the other place for changes, which might then constitute improvements rather than the undermining of an important element of the scheme.

Mr. Howard: I do not know how near the hon. Gentleman is to the end of his remarks, and I may have misjudged the timing of my intervention, but I hope that he will not sit down without saying whether or not his party is prepared to give an undertaking to restore the old scheme if it ever becomes the Government of this country.

Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary did not misjudge the timing of his intervention, but its nature, as well as the nature of the change that he is trying to introduce. The Home Secretary knows that it would be foolish for an Opposition Member to anticipate the state of legislation and the disastrous state of the economy that the Government will leave us. We look forward to that day with trepidation, but we shall also take on the challenge with pride when the Government finally leave office.
It comes as no surprise that the Government have proposed a scheme without consulting any agency that deals with victims, and that none of those agencies supports it. The Government did not even consult the chairman of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, Lord Carlisle, who stated in another place:
I turn to my other criticism"—
it was only one of his criticisms—
that it is being brought in without any attempt at consultation. I find that extraordinary. The board which has been responsible for running the scheme for 30 years was not consulted in any way before the decision of principle to change the basis of compensation was taken. I was asked to go and see the then Home Secretary"—
the current Chancellor—
and was informed that he would be announcing his decision to Parliament the following day.
It is a pity that the present Home Secretary did not allow his predecessor to take the proposal with him. Perhaps the reason for that is that his predecessor refuses to allow him enough money to run his Department—but that is a matter of misery within the Government, rather than a matter for us.
It is not surprising that, having omitted to consult anyone who works with victims, the Government have proposed a scheme that is so fundamentally misconceived. Their true reason for doing so is to save money. Of course


we all want value for money, but it is not acceptable to save money at the expense of the most vulnerable victims of crime.
When we last discussed the matter, on 28 March, the Home Secretary quoted two figures. He said that, since 1987-88, there had been only a 50 per cent. increase in the number of applications, but a threefold increase in compensation. In a devastating analysis in another place, Lord Carlisle showed that, allowing for inflation, the average award in 1993-94 prices in 1988 was £3,486. In March this year, the average was £3,778—hardly a massive increase. Similarly revealing is Lord Carlisle's assessment of the Home Secretary's claim that, since 1965-66, applications under the scheme had risen by 27 per cent. but compensation had risen by 378 per cent.
Lord Carlisle said:
If instead of comparing applications we compare the number of cases, and if we take into account the tenfold reduction in the value of money in that period, we find that on their calculation the average award in 1965 was £3,458 and it is £3,778 today, which is something less than a 10 per cent. increase in a period of 29 years.
Not only is the proposed scheme misguided and mean-spirited: it is contrary to our international obligations. The Home Secretary made great play of international comparisons, but the European convention on compensation for victims of violent crime, to which Britain is a signatory, states:
Compensation shall cover … loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and as regard dependants, loss of maintenance".
There are, in addition, profound concerns about the manner in which the Government have sought to change the scheme. As I said in a point of order, that matter is before the courts. Suffice it to say that the Government decided not to implement section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which would have put the present scheme on a statutory basis. Instead, they sought to introduce the changes by prerogative power, which led Lord Ackner to say in another place:
Some may think that it bears the hallmark of elective dictatorship.
Lord Carlisle said:
What is Parliament's purpose if one can commend one action to Parliament and then decide to do something totally different without going back to Parliament for approval?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1836, 1834, 1829, 1835.]
Whatever the arguments about the way that the scheme was introduced, the Government's proposals to change the scheme will drastically affect those who are most seriously injured in criminal attacks. Surely that cannot be right. Neither the Government nor the Conservative party will ever again be able to claim concern for the victims of crime in future when they are treating them so callously today. No Conservative Members of Parliament will be able to claim an interest in victims in their speeches or election material if they vote to disagree with the Lords amendment today.
No Conservative Member of Parliament who speaks of the sad case of a constituent who has a miserable life as a result of an inadequate level of compensation will have any credibility in the House if he or she votes to disagree with the Lords amendment today. I warn Conservative Members to bear that in mind if compassion and common sense fail alone fail to persuade them to join us in voting against the disgraceful motion to disagree.

Mr. Shersby: I wish to declare an interest, in that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and also president of Uxbridge Victim Support.
I have taken a close interest in criminal injuries compensation and raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 18 March 1993 when I first became aware, as a result of discussions with Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that changes were afoot. I shall read a short extract from the reply given by the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). He said:
It is important to take some time to explain the conceptual change in the nature of the new scheme"—
the tariff scheme. He went on:
Many people will accept that no amount of money can fully or properly compensate people for criminal injury, and that it is perhaps unrealistic to believe otherwise. There is no such thing as an 'absolute' or 'right' figure for the hurt suffered. Awards under common law damages are necessarily subjective, not objective. Even the courts are sometimes accused of inconsistency in the awards they make."—[Official Report, 18 March 1993; Vol. 221, c.506.]
That was an interesting statement which revealed the Minister's thinking on this important issue.
My concern is not only for police officers who are members of the Police Federation but for many other people who suffer criminal injuries and are left severely disabled. One of my concerns about changing the system is whether the tariff scheme would take account of an individual's loss of earnings if he or she were not able to work again. In my discussions with the present Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and other Ministers at the Home Office, I have been given the impression that the tariff level established at the inception of the proposed new scheme took account of loss of earnings, but perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, or whoever winds up the debate, will confirm that. It is essential that any compensation scheme should take account of an individual's loss of earnings.
My second worry about the proposed change is that the level of payments under the tariff scheme would inevitably be whittled away by the effects of inflation, although inflation is very low at the moment, which is to be welcomed. I pressed my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter and was grateful that, in response to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), he announced today that the tariff bands would be reviewed every three years. That is at least a step in the right direction and it means that we shall not be saddled with a scheme under which the value of compensation is whittled away over time.
Any hon. Member reflecting on what the Home Secretary has said today and what he said on 28 March 1994 has to recognise the burden placed on the Exchequer by the costs of the present compensation scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
We estimate that, without reform, the annual cost of the present arrangements could be in the region of £500 million by the end of the decade. Under the new tariff scheme, the cost is likely to be about £250 million—still a very large sum by the standards of any other state scheme."—[Official Report, 28 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 686.]
Like any responsible hon. Member, I have to consider the cost of any scheme instituted to pay criminal injuries compensation. I and many others realise that a scheme


instituted 30 years ago, in circumstances very different to those prevailing today, cannot necessarily remain unchanged. Were it to do so, the costs would rise enormously. If we are to stay with the existing scheme and make it statutory, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) suggests, it is incumbent on us to state how it is to be financed in the future. The only way that it could continue to be financed is by a reordering of priorities in terms of total Government expenditure. Anyone who wishes a scheme to continue without regard to cost must be prepared to propose changes in priorities. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to mutter, but that is the truth.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Shersby: I shall give way a little later.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Shersby: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an important point that he believes cannot wait.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is trying to provoke a response. The Government have presided over massive increases in the levels of crime, just as they have presided over massive increases in unemployment which have had a great impact on Government expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he is a Tory Back Bencher and that it is his Government who have caused many of the problems.

Mr. Shersby: If I may say so, that was a rather poor intervention and not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. Crime—especially burglary—in the area that I represent has fallen substantially in the past year as a result of excellent policing of the area.

Mr. Michael: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shersby: Yes, it has. It has fallen significantly because of Operation Bumblebee. Unemployment across the country is also falling steadily every month. That is my response to the hon. Gentleman's rather stupid intervention, which was hardly worthy of a Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend and I have been here since April 1992. In that time, has my hon. Friend heard anything from the Opposition parties spokesmen that would lead him to suppose that their policies would result in a reduction in crime or in unemployment?

Mr. Shersby: I can answer my hon. Friend easily—I have not.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to the ability of individuals, especially those with higher incomes, to insure against criminal injuries. It is an interesting point, but perhaps he will tell the House whether the average accident policy covers criminal

injuries or whether it would be necessary for individuals to take out a special policy. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would have been covered had he suffered an even more serious injury than that which he unhappily experienced as a result of what happened outside the House last night. If my right hon. and learned Friend is to rely on private accident insurance, it must be clear beyond all doubt that such insurance is available at a price that people can readily afford.
My response to the proposals are twofold. First, I should like to record my warm appreciation of what the Home Secretary said today about the triennial review of the present scheme. He has taken account of one of my key concerns and I am, as always, grateful for his attention.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is right or proper for any of us to demand that a scheme that has been in operation for a long time should continue, irrespective of the cost burden that it places on the taxpayer. One has to review such schemes from time to time and, although I and many people would have liked the current level of compensation to continue over a long period, I recognise the cogent arguments made by the Home Secretary on 28 March 1994.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The victims of crime rarely find that their sufferings and grief end with the direct effects of the crime itself, severe though those may be. Frequently, their suffering extends into a sense of frustration and anger at the way in which they have been treated by the system during and after the investigation and trial, a sense that continues when they feel that their problems have been forgotten and neglected afterwards. One of the few sources of relief from that frustration is the system of criminal injuries compensation. Maintaining that system and ensuring that it works effectively must be a priority for anybody in any party who wants to recognise and deal with the problems of victims of crime.
The Home Secretary cannot escape from the fact that the measures that he took to change the compensation scheme before the Bill came before the House involved saving money; that was what they were intended to do. Inevitably, they did so at the expense of victims of crime.
That was all done on the basis of figures that have been vigorously challenged by those who have the best claim to understand the situation, especially the chairman of the board, our former colleague, Lord Carlisle, who did not understand how the Government could have arrived at their projection of how rapidly the cost of the scheme would increase. He claimed, with some authority, that if the Government's assumptions were correct and there were a 19.5 per cent. increase in the year just ended, the body should already have spent an extra £180 million, whereas it had spent only an extra £165 million. Already, in the first year of the calculation, the assessment of how rapidly the cost of the scheme would increase is £15 million out. The basis of the Government's figures has been seriously challenged.
The victims charter—it is still remembered—encouraged the police to tell people to apply for compensation, but they would have been applying for it under a compensation scheme that has now been radically changed. The Home Secretary must realise that there are serious disadvantages to put alongside the supposed advantages of a tariff system.


Perhaps the most compelling instance of the disadvantage of a tariff system is the fact that it takes no account of the consequences of the injury for the livelihood of individuals, and their ability to earn their living and to maintain anything like their previous standard of living. Such considerations relate to the age of the people concerned and the extent to which the injury affects their livelihood.
Inevitably, those who will suffer most from the changes include some of those whose injuries are the worst and have the most disastrous effect on their future mobility. Some of those who suffer most will be the youngest people, who will suffer the consequences of crime over so many more years, and whose ability to earn their own living will have been destroyed or severely damaged by the crime.
Among those people will be injured police officers, often young men and women—both men and women have suffered criminal injury through service in the police force. That category will also include prison officers and people in civilian life who have to confront violence and criminality more often than many of us, because of the nature of their work. Examples are local authority staff, security guards and self-employed contractors, who, because of the nature of their work and where it takes place, come into contact with crime. Those people may be in a much less favourable position to make their own provision for insurance against crime than people on high earnings. I am talking about people running small one-man and one-woman businesses, who may be exposed to the danger of crime.
The figures quoted in the debate and the references to people on higher earnings have sometimes ignored the limitations already in the system. As I understand it, the scheme does not take into account earnings of more than one and a half times the national average, so there is no question of the old scheme doling out large sums of money to people simply because they had a huge earning capacity. Quite a modest limit on the level of earnings that can be taken into account is clearly built in.
The problems that will be faced under the new scheme have been vividly bought to light by Lord Carlisle, Lord Ackner and Martin Thomas QC, who, after serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for eight years, resigned in December 1993, with great regret, to protest against the changes and the serious consequences that he felt that they would have. The Home Secretary should not treat lightly the views of such people, or those of other organisations with considerable experience in dealing with victims of crime, who can see the reasoning behind the awards made, and who are deeply concerned about the consequences.
There is also a constitutional point underlying the amendment. The Government never implemented the statutory basis for criminal injuries compensation that this House and the other place intended should exist. The format of the amendment is designed to implement that statutory basis. We all realise that if the Government agreed to do that they would do it with modifications to the scheme. No doubt, for the reasons that they have advanced, they would seek to apply further financial restraints.
The framework of the Bill offered the Government an opportunity to put the new scheme on a statutory basis, and at the same time to listen to the concerns and objections of the people who understand how the old

scheme has worked and the terrible suffering that it deals with, and who believe, as many of us do, that victims of serious crime will be severely damaged by the changes.
In making his projections for the possible cost of not changing the scheme, the Home Secretary seems to have little confidence in what he has said about reducing crime. He has stood before two Conservative conferences and told them that he would cut crime, but he does not show much confidence in the 27 measures that he announced last year if he thinks that there will still be spiralling costs because of increasing crime. The most effective way to reduce the future cost of the criminal injuries compensation scheme would be to reduce crime, and to introduce the measures involving policing in the community and changing attitudes in the community that many of us believe will bring that about.
The victims of crime must command sufficient attention from the Government to prevent them from being as seriously disadvantaged as I believe that many of them will be by the new scheme. Their lordships were right to seek, through the Bill, to bring the Government back to that issue. The Government made changes without any statutory authority or parliamentary basis. Here is an opportunity for us to put things back on a statutory basis and to have a modified scheme properly determined by statute. For that reason, I encourage my hon. Friends to vote for the Lords amendment.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall first deal with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Opposition spokesman. The logic of his criticism would be to go back to the old system and spend even more than the £570 million that we should have expected to spend, if the system had been left in place, in order to reduce delays.
Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment to that much more public spending if the Labour party ever takes power in this country? Of course he will not; nor was it to have been expected. What he says is just words. The Opposition always use the phrase "weasel words", but if people want weasel words and unconvincing words, there they are, without any commitment.
The hon. Gentleman cites bodies that want more money to be spent. Of course they do. Every spending body wants more money to be spent, especially if it can be raised from the taxpayer. If the Government gave way to every claim to spend more, the deficit would be not £40 billion but £400 billion, and the British economy, instead of being one of the safest in Europe, would be one of the sickest. It would be the laughing stock of Europe, as it was when the Labour Government were in power.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was not beyond the wit of a half-competent Home Secretary to come up with another scheme that combined the old and the new. But what about a half-competent Opposition spokesman? Where is his alternative scheme? He has all these groups and all these bodies closest to the question of criminal injuries compensation which support him. They have been thinking about the matter, agonising about the matter and worrying about the matter. Have they come up with the alternative scheme which would be an improvement on the scheme that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has introduced?


5.30 pm

Finally, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth attacks the Government's record on victims. At least this Government have a record of achievement for victims. The previous Labour Government had none at all. They spent less money on victims; they did not have a victims charter; they did not give victim support and victim counselling in the courts. If victim support is so poor, why are so many victims coming forward to complain, especially women who are the subject of rape and sexual offences? They never came forward in the days when we had a Labour Government and there was no concern about victims.
These criticisms are, again, just pathetic. They are just words and they have no content. It is the new-look Labour party, made for television, made for the sound bite and made for public consumption, which is actually meaningless and contentless.
We must support the Government in their stand on the criminal injuries compensation scheme because the Lords amendments would clearly wreck the scheme and because it is necessary to take action as the Government propose.

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen to criticise the Opposition, can he tell us the extent to which he expects the bill to be reduced over the next two or three years as a result of the Home Secretary getting tough on crime? Does he expect that policy to work? Does he expect the amount that has to be spent on victims to be reduced, or not?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: We know that there has been an increase in crime every year since the end of the war. We also know that the increase in crime in this country is consistent with increases in crime in all other countries in the western world except those that have far more repressive forms of punishment. We also know that there has been a reduction in crime in the past year. We have had little praise from the Labour party for having done what it has suggested that the Government should do—that is, to reduce crime. We are reducing crime at a rate of between 5 and 10 per cent. a year. If that means so little to the Labour party, perhaps Labour Members should get up on television more often and say, "We ought to have more crime, not less crime as the Government are achieving through their policies with the support of the police and the courts."

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that even if the fall in crime were at the level of 5 or 6 per cent., as he suggests—and that is not the case in terms of genuine crime or of crimes of violence—it would take 15 years to get back to the level under the previous Labour Government, at which time crime was actually going down?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need to get back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme rather than discussing the wider scene.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be happy to pursue the matter. No doubt we shall do so on other occasions. I should be more than happy to defend the Government's record.
I come back to the present criminal injuries compensation scheme, which I have said is necessary and which the Lords amendments would wreck. The reason why it is necessary is quite simply that the previous

scheme was getting out of hand. The scheme before 1 April was getting too expensive. It was becoming too inefficient and too unfair. I do not say that as a criticism of the work of Lord Carlisle, who must be complimented on the great deal of effort that he, his team and his predecessors have put into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board over so many years, with so many awards and such substantial increases. Therein, of course, lies part of the problem.
The scheme was getting too expensive because the cost was rising from an equivalent of £4 million in 1965 to £570 million in six years' time. That is totally unacceptable. If the figures are inaccurate—I am the first to concede that Government figures are often inaccurate, because the Treasury is famous for its inaccurate assessments, whether to the good or to the bad—to the extent of £16 million in one year, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, that would amount to an inaccuracy of about £100 million in six years' time. That is still an increase from the equivalent of £4 million when the scheme was set up to £470 million in six years' time, which is an enormous sum. It is an exponential increase which must be addressed by any responsible Government.
The scheme was getting too inefficient because of the delays, which were getting longer and longer. There were sometimes delays of years. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler). Every hon. Member must have written to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board over the past year or two on behalf of constituents who complained that after a year, two years or even longer, they had still not received their money. I would much rather receive £1,000 next month than £1,500 in two or three years' time. Everywhere, we see that delays in payment are expensive and hurtful to those who will rely on the payments to achieve a certain standard of living after serious injury as a result of crime. The figures speak for themselves. We have gone from 2,500 claims 30 years ago to 73,000 claims now, with 41,000 awards.
The system was also getting unfair because there were too many examples of similar injuries attracting different amounts of compensation. Unfairness has arisen, which can be corrected to some extent by a tariff system.
As a result of those unfairnesses and inefficiencies and because of the exponential cost, the Government have proposed a new scheme which contains the cost, reduces the inefficiencies and the delay and is a bit fairer. It is not perfect. How could it be? In a perfect world, costs would be unlimited, delays would not exist, each case would be perfectly tailored and there would be no feelings of injustice caused by one person getting a different surn because his or her income was greater. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has outlined and reminded us of the scheme. It is there in the Bill for all of us to see. It is an attempt to provide, as broadly as we can, the current levels of award, based on an assessment of 20,000 cases, which does not sound to me an unreasonable cross-section. The question is not whether it is perfect, but whether it does more harm than good.
The scheme does do some harm; we have to accept that some people will suffer. We have to listen and we have to accept the fact that some of the hard cases that have


been outlined by hon. Members in this debate may well be true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that 40 per cent. of cases might not be as well paid out as they are at present, but that 60 per cent. of cases will be as well, if not better, paid out.
I am concerned, as Opposition Members are, about police officers and prison officers. I have listened to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about taking into consideration all the benefits that would accrue in the form of awards of one kind or another to police officers. We must ensure that police officers, through occupational pensions, receive benefits that are, perhaps, greater in future than they have been in the past.
When one looks at the alternative suggested by the Law Society and others, one must realise that if it will undermine the virtues of the new proposals, it must be unacceptable. The harm is not as great as some people are suggesting. We would still have the most generous scheme in the world. It is seven times more generous than the French, 20 times more generous than the Germans, and perhaps five or six times more generous than in the United States—where, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is an active victim lobby. Certainly, it is the most generous in the world if one includes Northern Ireland, which we always try to do in our proceedings in this place.
The new scheme is a tariff system, but one cannot complain about a tariff system. Even now, the criminal injuries compensation scheme, or the scheme that existed before 1 April, was a form of tariff system. All the judges apply a tariff system. So it is merely an extension and a variation of the tariff system.
Yes, loss of earnings will not be taken into consideration as a special damage. But that caused most of the delay. Fifty per cent. of the time spent on awards which, at the end, produced only about £100, was taken up by trying to assess with employers, sometimes with great difficulty, or with social security offices, when there was sometimes even greater difficulty, what the precise level of earnings loss had been. It is, in any event, somewhat doubtful whether a significant increase in payment ought to be due simply because one victim is earning more than the other, even though the injury is the same.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that under the old criminal injuries compensation scheme, the assessment of damages for loss of earnings amounted very often to no more than crystal gazing? It was a notoriously inexact science and was often no more than an educated guess.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: And often, it produced only something like £100, for which there had been a delay of perhaps a year or two in trying to assess the sum. Also, the system is not so harmful because it will be cheaper. If it brings down the increase in costs from £166 million this year to £243 million in six years' time—a saving of £327 million or, if the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right, a saving of only £227 million—that money can be better spent elsewhere. It can be spent on a wider form of victim support. It can be spent on more health or more legal aid, or even in a reduction of taxation. Those are important benefits, even if it is no longer necessary because of the way in which the economy is improving, further to reduce the deficit.
It is a fact that the scheme is estimated to provide an improved situation or a no-worse situation for 60 per cent. of cases and it is a fact that social welfare, private insurance and occupational benefit schemes can be added to the benefits that will accrue from criminal injuries compensation. It will be more efficient because it will no longer be necessary to have a highly staffed board. There will be fewer appeals; there will be speedier settlements. As I have said, most people would rather have a sum of money in their pocket quickly, for the purposes of helping themselves immediately back to health, than a slightly larger sum of money a long time later.
We have to strike a balance. There is no way in which we can try to be perfect. The scheme does not apply to people who are victims of other kinds of injury other than criminal injury. We do not make any pretence with special schemes to try to help those who are not falling foul of criminal injury, so there is an injustice in the existing system.
5.45 pm
On balance, there seems to be far more for the Government's scheme than against it. If we apply the Bentham rule of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, the scheme should qualify. Furthermore, it is consistent with the view that the House has already expressed on an important occasion in March when we voted for the Government scheme. Now that the Home Secretary has given an undertaking that his mind is not closed to improvements in the scheme if it should be seen to be lacking, it is obvious that, on balance, there is more sense in supporting the Government's proposal and less sense in opposing it, for there is no alternative that could be seen to be workable. Therefore, in those circumstances, we should reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. John Morris: The Lords amendment gives us an opportunity to consider real anxieties about the conduct of the Government in relation to Parliament and also the unfairness of the tariff proposal. I find the attitude of the Government, on the face of it, to the future of the much-valued CICB incomprehensible and indefensible. It is, in fact, an affront to Parliament. Parliament gave of its time to consider the Government's proposals in 1988 and 10 clauses of the Criminal Justice Act in 1988 dealt with the statutory scheme. It was high time then that there was a statutory scheme, after a very long—far too long—trial period and it was being put in order as it should have been.
The Bill ignores the 1988 Act. There was no mention of it until the Opposition tabled amendments. It is not even repealed. It will lie idle on the statute book. Instead, we have a non-statutory scheme and the Government have played ducks and drakes with Parliament and the time that Parliament gave to passing the 1988 Act. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity that the Lords have given us.
The Home Secretary said today that the proposed scheme is generous. There is always a case for examining a scheme, especially a scheme that has been going for a long time. But if one changes a scheme that has brought benefit to hundreds of thousands of people, we should examine whether the change proposed is a fair change: whether there is fairness in what is now proposed. The scheme before us has no friends anywhere other than on the Conservative Benches.


My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) quoted a large number of important and knowledgeable organisations that oppose and have opposed what is proposed. Their lordships' House opposed it. The ink is hardly dry on the victims charter before the rug is pulled from under the very victims who the Government put themselves up as being their protectors. Those victims, the 40 per cent. who are the losers, will know that this Government do not care about them. The new scheme is Treasury led, it is a means of saving money and saving money in an unfair way. The argument is about the proposed unfair tariff system.
We are replacing a carefully considered scheme, which had been working well—too well, the Government say—over the years, trying to put the principles of the common law into practice, by trying to put the injured back so far as was possible, financially at least, to the way they were before the accident or the injury. The common law has developed sensitively over the centuries and taken account paymentsof varying circumstances and a range of considerations. Instead of retaining the sensitive scheme, which had been run by the CICB, the Government have imposed a flat tariff and we have heard the admission that 40 per cent. of people will be losers.
We have to go back to ancient Greece to find a parallel. Procrustes sought to harmonise his victims by putting them on one of his two beds. If they were too short for one bed, he extended the victims' legs by pulling on them and if they were too long for the other bed, he cut the legs off. That was bad government then and this new tariff is bad government now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to several examples and I want to refer to one or two. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was concerned about the loss of earnings. As the Home Secretary has told us, there may well be an element of loss of earnings in the tariff, but it will be a fixed amount and will not take into account the variable circumstances. That is the essence of a flat tariff.
A young skilled steeplejack who fractures his leg obviously has a greater financial loss than a retired pensioner in his seventies. The common law has always recognised that. Anyone in physical employment has the potential of greater financial loss. A high earner's loss is bound to be higher than a low earner's loss. We should be very interested to discover how wide accident policies are, as indicated by the Home Secretary, to cover that kind of contingency. We should like to know how many people are covered by such policies.
The scarred face of a girl model cannot be compared to a similar scar on a middle-aged man. That is what the common law has always been about, that is what our courts have emulated and that is what the board was trying to do its best to achieve.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

Mr. Morris: No, I do not have time. I am trying to close my comments.
All that I have described will be thrown out the window and in its place there will be a flat tariff which is fundamentally flawed in that it takes no account of age, sex or occupation.
I agree that the tariff figures are generally comparable to what is awarded at common law for pain and suffering. However, there is no proper means of effectively and fairly compensating for loss of wages or earning capacity.
One cannot have that. I shall be fascinated by the Home Secretary's explanation of a flat tariff.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, an esteemed, distinguished and respected Member of our House over many years said:
In cases such as sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder or scarring, the effects vary so enormously in different people that to use any form of tariff is meaningless.
The scheme will do a grave injustice to a large number of people. Never again will Conservative Members be able to say that they care for the victims of crime. If they do say that—and I am sure that they will—that will be sheer hypocrisy, because, plainly, they do not care. I wish that some Conservative Members who will troop into the Lobby in support of the Government had read carefully the knowledgeable and learned speeches made in the other House. Plainly, the plan has no friends and is patently unfair.

Mrs. Roche: In The Independent yesterday the Home Secretary said:
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has a common thread running through it: it protects the public and fights crime. A crucial element is the effect crime has on victims. We should all pay greater heed to victims' plight.
Given that statement, I was absolutely amazed when the Home Secretary sought to overturn the Lords amendment.
The Home Office has already indicated that about 6,600 victims a year will receive payments that are less than half of what might have been expected under the present scheme. Written replies from Home Office Ministers earlier this year confirmed that 11 per cent. of recipients under the new scheme would receive awards which were 50 per cent. less than at present. A further 8 per cent. would receive compensation payments which were between half and two thirds of current awards. As the Police Federation put it,
The changes mark a significant and indefensible retreat from the Government's own commitment to give the highest priority to the victims of crime.
From time to time in our surgeries, we all have the tragic experience of seeing constituents who have been the victims of crime, and sometimes the victims of very violent crime. Yet the Home Secretary and the Government are attacking a scheme that is doing its best under the present system—and any system to aid the victims of crime should of course be improved.
Many examples already cited here and in another place show how the Government's proposals would adversely affect the victims of serious crime. The driving force behind the new tariff scheme is clearly Treasury driven and it attempts to make the victims of crime pay for the Government's failure significantly to reduce the level of crime, despite Ministers' spurious claims that the system will be improved.
What is even worse is that those hit hardest by the proposals will be the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. They are the people in society who often face the most difficult task. The proposals will also hurt those with the most serious injuries and those whose injuries result in significant impairment of earning capacity and loss of employment.

Lord Carlisle said that his major concern throughout had been that he considered that the new scheme was unfair in that all the savings would be made at the cost of those with the worst injuries. I do not believe for a moment that Lord Carlisle reached that conclusion lightly or hastily. He obviously felt quite rightly that the new proposals and the new scheme were wrong morally and in principle.
In cases of injury of maximum severity, the tariff system is wholly inappropriate. By
removing the subjective element of the assessment",
as the White Paper put it, no account would be taken of the widely differing consequences of such serious injury. That point was made so well and briefly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris).

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at the issue in a wider context? What does my hon. Friend think about a situation relating to a case—about which I wrote to the Minister, but did not receive a satisfactory reply—involving police officers in my constituency who were severely assaulted by a criminal who was on licence from prison? I will not go into the details, but the assault was sickening. Those officers saw that man being granted bail when he was taken to court. Not for the first time in his criminal career, that man did not respond to bail when the case came before the court. The officers then found that the injuries that the man had inflicted on them were likely to attract less compensation than they would under the present system.

Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that case to the attention of the House. There are many tragic cases like that and that explains why the Police Federation reached the conclusion that it reached.
The proposals have changed the scheme from being a finely tuned and flexible instrument designed to meet the individual needs of people who have suffered appalling injuries—many of whom are police officers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said—and have lumped those people together with people who have suffered other injuries without taking into consideration individual circumstances, age, future prospects or dependants.
Another aspect of the proposal is the way in which it has been introduced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon has explained that the Lords amendment, and the Labour amendment supporting it, seek to put the current compensation scheme on a statutory basis, fulfilling the obligation made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell the House whether he thinks, as Earl Ferrers appeared to think in another place, that when Parliament enacted the 1988 Act and provided that the Secretary of State should bring that legislation into force on a day or days of his choosing, Parliament intended that he be allowed to ignore it altogether and introduce a completely different scheme without reference to Parliament. Clearly, the 1998 Act intended to ensure that the Executive were accountable to the House in this matter. That is a very important point of principle and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would address it.
Reference has already been made to Mr. Martin Thomas QC, who was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for nine years. Perhaps it would be salutary to note Mr. Thomas's article of 18 January, which states:
Conservative MPs, if no longer moved by justice and fairness, ought to be thinking about their skins. The voters will be out for Tory blood when they rumble what lies behind these alleged reforms. Perhaps it is time for Tories to plot a little political mugging of their Home Secretary. The board would sympathetically consider giving him an award.

6 pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I remind the House that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. In that regard, I raise with the Home Secretary concern about his remark that an officer who is injured during the course of his service will receive his pension, plus a gratuity of five times his annual salary. That is incorrect. That occurs only when there is a violent death in service, as the Home Secretary should know. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary appears to ask from a sedentary position exactly what I said, so I repeat it: a violent death in service. Other than that, if he has, for example, 20 years' service entitlement, that officer will receive 27 60ths of his pensionable pay. The only gratuity will come from commuting up to a maximum of a quarter of the pension to which he is entitled. There is no gratuity of five times the annual salary in the case of Stonier, for example, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred. I hope that the Home Secretary will be good enough to correct that matter in due course.
I also remind the House that one in 12 applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board arise from assaults on officers. The Police Federation therefore strongly opposes the Government's attack on victims in the form of cutting compensation. Yesterday, the police protected parliamentary debate and risked assault in doing so. Is it not a rich irony that some Conservative MPs, who today praised officers of the Metropolitan police for risking assault in protecting Parliament, will vote to cut the compensation that would have been payable to officers who were the victims of such criminal assaults?
The Government's new criminal injuries compensation scheme is a betrayal of all victims of crime—the very victims for whom the Government have been trumpeting their support for months. The Government complain that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is becoming too expensive and that its costs have grown greatly during the past 15 years. Its costs have increased because the number of victims has increased during the Government's tenure. The Government's complaint is that the victims of crime—the victims of the failure of Tory law and order policies—are now becoming too expensive.
How can the Government justify saying to a victim of crime that, whereas for the past 15 years their policy was to pay, as in the Stonier case, £126,000 for a certain injury, now, because the scheme is becoming too expensive for the Government, the amount is only £7,500? What Tory message is that to the victims of crime? The scheme robs those who have suffered the worst and most serious injury of the relatively fair compensation that was payable under the old scheme, as part of a criminal justice system which otherwise does little or nothing for the victims of crime.


Although it is fair to say that improving the speed of delivery of compensation is important, it should not be bought at the price of unfairness and injustice in the quality of what is delivered. Speeding up the process can be done without the Government's proposed system of arbitrary tariffs. The Government promise is that the new system will be much quicker. That is their main argument for it. I have my doubts. From long experience of such cases, I know that the main cause of delay has been and will remain awaiting medical and witness reports.
Perhaps there will be some small savings in time, but they will not be enough to justify the increased unfairness that the new system will create. Fairness in dealing with the widely differing circumstances of victims is important if the victims are not also to regard themselves as victims of the unfairness of the criminal injuries compensation system.
Each case is different; it has its own factors and consequences. Being blinded in a criminal attack does not have the same financial consequences for everyone. The consequences for a 24-year-old builder's labourer with a wife and two children are different from those for an 80-year-old who lives in an old folks' home. The law recognised that difference under the old scheme and it sought a certain level of fairness, despite some inadequacies. How can it be fair that the victim of a hit-and-run driver who breaks a leg will receive full compensation from the motor insurance bureau under common law principles and that the victim of a criminal attack with an iron bar will not receive such compensation under the Government's new scheme? That difference cannot be justified.
The Government's proposals are all about saving the Treasury money at the expense of the victims of crime. Compensation without compassion for victims is the Government's message. If the Government deny that, let the facts speak for themselves, especially when it comes to victims of the most serious crimes. Let us consider a few cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has already referred to the Stonier case, on which I have had to correct the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend referred also to the Holton case, in which compensation was reduced from £126,000 to £5,000.
In the Slater case, a woman aged 38 who witnessed her husband being stabbed to death would have received £137,000 under the old scheme but would receive £17,500 under the new one. In the case of Burrows, a 46-year-old social worker who was attacked at work would have received £55,000 under the old scheme but would receive £3,000 under the new one. Lady Tebbit, who was injured in the Brighton bombing, received £750,000 under the old scheme. She would receive a third of that amount under the new scheme. Quddus Ali, a 17-year-old who received serious head injuries when he was attacked, would have received £65,000 under the old scheme but would receive £40,000 under the new scheme. Colin Hickman, a Coventry solicitor specialising in civil litigation who was stabbed more than 10 times, would have received £100,000 under the old scheme. Under the new scheme because the offence resulted in a fatality, he would receive £10,000.
Those examples speak for themselves. In effect, the Home Secretary is mugging the victims of crime. The victims of crime are now becoming the victims of Government cuts.

Mr. Howard: With permission, I will try and deal briefly with some points that have been raised.
We are accustomed to hot air from the Opposition parties, but in this debate they have exceeded their normal performance by a large margin. It is simply no use at all protesting about the Government's proposals unless one is prepared to make a commitment that one will stick to the old scheme were one ever to form a Government. That would give some small credibility to the Opposition's points. In the absence of that commitment, what Opposition Members say signifies absolutely nothing.
Questions were raised about the extent to which the new scheme compensates people for loss of earnings. It is the case that the tariff reflects loss of earnings. The tariff award is based on awards made previously by the board. It includes an element for loss of earnings and the other heads of damage payable under the old scheme. However, it is true that these elements are no longer separately quantifiable. There is a difference, but the tariff reflects loss of earnings in that way. That is the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).

Mr. John Morris: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I want to make speedy progress. The tariff is not a flat rate; it represents an average of loss of earnings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also raised a question about insurance policies. As far as we are aware, most insurance policies which cover such loss do not exclude injuries caused by crimes of violence, so that route is open.
Many of the examples that were cited by Labour Members, including the Front-Bench spokesman, leave out completely the extent to which people benefit from occupational schemes. There is one important respect in which the new arrangements are advantageous, compared to the old scheme. Under the old scheme, occupational and Department of Social Security benefits are taken into account by the board when making an assessment. Under the new scheme, such benefits will be disregarded. That is an important difference which is an advantage of the new scheme. It might well also be an advantage—I do not know whether it will be an advantage because that depends on the particular circumstances—in some of the examples cited by Labour Members.
My information about the entitlement of police officers who have been injured is not the same as that given to the House by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien). Perhaps that is something which we can pursue in correspondence.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am concerned that some of the Home Secretary's information about the sorts of levels is wrong; he may be relying on wrong information. I suggest that what I said was right. My source of information is


well known both to him and to me and is well respected by us both—it is the general secretary of the Police Federation, whom I telephoned to check the facts.

Mr. Howard: I do not think that we will be able to resolve the matter across the Floor of the House this evening, but I am certainly prepared to pursue it with the hon. Gentleman.
The truth is that the new scheme has advantages of speed and bringing costs under control. It will remain one of the most generous schemes in the world. I commend the scheme to the House. On that basis, I invite the House to disagree with the amendment made in another place.

Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary has totally failed to answer the debate. Indeed, he changed his question. He asked whether Labour would stick to the old scheme—the answer is yes. He is the one who seeks to change the old scheme.
It is clear from the debate that Tory Members are no longer interested in justice or fairness. The Home Secretary is no longer interested in the victims of the most violent and horrific of injuries. If Tory Members vote to disagree with the Lords in the amendment, they will stand condemned by their own actions.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 264.

Division No. 310]
[6.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bright, Sir Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Elleton, Harold


Burns, Simon
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)





Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Greenway, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hendry, Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Ottaway, Richard


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas






Speed, Sir Keith
Trotter, Neville


Spencer, Sir Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Trend, Michael
Dr. Liam Fox




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


(Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Burden, Richard
Enright, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Church, Judith
Fraser, John


Clapham, Michael
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galloway, George





Gapes, Mike
McMaster, Gordon


Garrett, John
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Graham, Thomas
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harvey, Nick
Mudie, George


Henderson, Doug
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hodge, Margaret
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoey, Kate
Olner, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Handall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacShane, Denis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Alice
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marek, Dr John
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


McAllion, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Timms, Stephen


McLeish, Henry
Tipping, Paddy






Trimble, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Tyler, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wise, Audrey


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. John Cummings and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Jon Owen-Jones

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

After Clause 136

Lords amendment: No. 131, to insert the following new clause—Offence of selling confidential financial information—

.—(1) It is an offence for a person ("the seller") to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if—

(a) the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception; and
(b) the information is intended to be disclosed without the consent of such other person.

(2) An advertisement or circular indicating that information of that description is or may be for sale is an offer to sell within the meaning of subsection (1).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, at end insert 'or otherwise provide'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 150, Government amendments (a), (b), (c), (aa), (bb), (cc), (d), (e) and (f) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 163 and 180, and Government motions to disagree to Lords amendments 131 and 163.

Mr. Darling: I know that the House has many other amendments to deal with this evening. The point that needs dealing with here is a fairly short one, necessitating only a short debate.
The Lords amendment introduces a new clause to the Bill which would make it a criminal offence to disclose confidential financial information obtained by deception and disclosed without the consent of the person concerned. Our amendment would make it an offence to sell such information or otherwise to provide it—in other words, even if there were no consideration or sale involved, simply providing information obtained by deception and without consent would be a criminal offence.
There is an increasing problem, caused by the fact that banks and other financial institutions hold considerable amounts of financial information on all of us. Agencies have grown up and people have appeared all over the country who are willing to obtain this information by deception and then provide it to third parties. Indeed, it is

possible to find out someone's bank balance for about £250, and to find out details of standing orders and other confidential information for payments of about £1,000.
During the summer, ITN, with my consent, instructed a firm of inquiry agents to see whether they could find out information about my bank account. I authorised them to do this because I believed it was possible to obtain the information: and so it transpired. A firm of inquiry agents in London was instructed, and managed to obtain details of my bank balance. It is quite easy to do that by deception, and as far as the inquiry agents knew there was no question of my consent having been given.
Most people want that practice stopped. When Lord Brightman moved the amendment that is now Lords amendment No. 131, there was widespread support in the other place for prohibition of that sort of behaviour. It is not easy to see on what grounds the Government want to remove that new clause from the Bill, other than that they believe that it might impede the activities of credit reference agencies.
The legitimate activities of such agencies would not be impeded because they do not need to obtain their information by deception. They might not have consent, but no element of deception is involved because they are, or they ought to be, straightforward about the business in which they are engaged.
6.30 pm
There can be no place for individuals obtaining confidential financial information by deception and without the consent of the person involved. If we respect an individual's right to privacy—a fundamental right—it is important that we accept the Lords amendment.
We broadly agree with what the Government are trying to achieve in Lords amendment No. 150. As I understand it, however, the Government amendment would not stop someone obtaining information, if the provider had registered that he or she was able to provide it under the Data Protection Acts. Most banks state on their data protection certificate that they are prepared to disclose information to inquiry agents, for example. The Government amendment does not go far enough, although I welcome the fact that it appears to make limited progress.
The fundamental argument is that the House should accept Lords amendment No. 131, with our amendment to it, because that is the only way in which we will stop people obtaining confidential financial information and making it available. If the Minister is going to reply that such affairs are covered by the law on confidentiality, I hope that the Government will refresh their memory and bear in mind the difficulties that they faced over the "Spycatcher" and Ponting cases. They will realise that the law on confidentiality is by no means straightforward. That law would not provide the protection that people are looking for.
In that spirit, I move our amendment and trust that the Government will think again and accept it.

Mr. Beith: The Lords amendment is most welcome—I shall summarise it and the amendment to it as though they were one, although it is a little more complicated than that. It is clearly necessary to attempt to extend some protection to financial information and the combined efforts of the Government and certain of their lordships have at last achieved some results.


One must be aware of the seriousness of the problem. I have seen newspaper reports of advertisements by companies that offer to obtain such information and charge tariffs. A company called ACT is reported to have a tariff for information from banks and building societies. For obtaining a balance, the charge is £245—in some of our cases, that might be more than the balance—and a statement can be obtained for £1,000, while confirmation of overdraft or loan facilities costs £300.
Those services are freely advertised by companies purporting to have access to information that can be obtained only by some form of deception, or by inviting a dereliction of duty by employees of banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Such institutions are extremely worried about the situation. The majority of their staff would not assist such an activity in any way, but the possibilities of deception on the part of the person obtaining the information, the failure of security systems and the fact that someone might occasionally be willing to pass such information in dereliction of his or her duty, combine to expose the security systems of financial institutions and individuals to such a danger. The fact that companies are able to offer a tariff for that information suggests that it is being obtained on an extremely wide scale.
I support the Lords amendment, which the Government are resisting, because I am anxious about information that is not obtained directly from a computer. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position. If we do not pass the amendment, although information held on computer will be protected, all sorts of similar information, which is in written form or is not necessarily obtained direct from a computer, including many of the things listed in the tariffs, will still be available to those organisations.
I do not know to what extent it will be possible to transfer information from a computer, write it down and pass it on. In many cases, the information will already exist in written form. Copies of statements, a passbook or a number of other things may be floating around the office.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman may know that I was a banking lawyer before entering the House, and that I helped to draft the codes of banking practice. Once material has been produced in computerised form, it is covered, even if it becomes part of a separate written document.

Mr. Beith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that advice, for which I am pleased not to have had to pay any fee—the House is greatly advantaged. I would still like to hear the information from the Minister's mouth.
There must be some ambiguous cases. Information might be held in a computer as well as in written form, perhaps because a cashier has written something down for a customer, or because of some correspondence that is entirely separate from the computer records, which leads me to believe that the amendment's provisions must be bolstered. Their lordships were certainly persuaded that the amendment was appropriate. Despite the wish to

dispatch the matter quickly, I hope that the Minister will realise that it is important, and that he needs to explain the position.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall, of course, support the Government, but there is some good sense in Lord Brightman's amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister might well be arguing that it would have all sorts of ramifications for press freedom, which we do not want to develop by imposing swingeing criminal offences when we have not yet sorted out what we are going to do about Calcutt. I must warn my hon. Friend that an awful lot of people are concerned about press freedom, and if we do not introduce some of the Calcutt proposals, we may well have to return to this element of the Bill.
The Minister knows that I believe that we must do something to contain abuses of press power, but I fear that the Government will not do anything—certainly not before the next election. There may be good political reasons for that. If they do not intend to do so, Lord Brightman's amendment should be reconsidered. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us some sign that he has not totally closed his mind to the viability of the amendment in due course.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) knows that I never have a closed mind on any subject, and he has touched on an important point. It is far from easy to determine how far the press should be allowed to go to expose stories about criminal activity or anti-social conduct in a democratic society. Sir David Calcutt dealt with the issue, suggesting, inter alia, new criminal offences in certain circumstances.
The Government will, before long, be announcing their reactions to those recommendations. At this stage, I cannot anticipate what line we will be taking, but I am clear that it would be wrong for the House to agree new criminal offences that would impinge on the press, in ways that go beyond anything suggested by Calcutt and which contain no form of defence on which the press could rely, in advance of the Government's proposed White Paper. That would be the wrong way to proceed, as I am sure that the House and my hon. and learned Friend would agree. Those are sensitive issues and we must consider them properly.

Mr. Beith: Surely any restraint on the press from the amendments applies to the amendment that the Government are accepting as much as it does to Lord Brightman's amendment. Is not the only circumstance in which the press would appear to be affected if a freelance reporter were involved, and that therefore there was a financial consideration to the passing of the information?

Mr. Maclean: I shall explain that we have concluded that Lord Brightman's amendments went further than was appropriate before we have the Government's conclusions to the Calcutt report. We are not dismissing his suggestions out of hand, and we have carefully considered them.
We have now concluded, in the light of Lords amendment No. 131, that we should go a stage further in regard to the Data Protection Act 1988. We cannot advise the House to keep Lords amendment No. 131, but we propose in an amendment that is now before the House to


attach the key feature of that amendment—the offering for sale of improperly obtained information—to our own new data protection offence.
Accordingly, we propose to make it an offence for a person to sell, or offer for sale, data procured in contravention of the Data Protection Act. That is the effect of the new subsection (7) inserted into section 5 of the 1984 Act. The new subsection (8) covers the situation of the person who makes an offer for sale at one point in time, and carries out the illicit procuring subsequently. Such a person will be guilty of the new selling offence once data are actually procured.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for the amendment standing in his name and that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I think that I can see the intention behind them. If the person who sells data that he has procured in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 is to be guilty of an offence, so ought a person who has given data away to a third party or might get his eward by devious means some considerable time later. If the words "or otherwise provides" were capable only of covering such a person, the Government would have no substantial objection to them.
The words are capable of being much wider in their application. They would, for example, cover the handing over of data to another person in the same organisation simply to be filed with a view to future use. It is unsatisfactory in principle that the scope of a criminal law should be so vague in its application that it is capable of covering acts that it is not intended to prohibit.
I must also say to the hon. Gentleman that the additional words are unnecessary. By virtue of Lords amendment No. 150, it is already an offence to procure disclosure of personal data, knowing or having reason to believe that the disclosure constitutes a contravention of subsection (2) or (3) of section 5 of the Data Protection Act. Accordingly, the person who has obtained personal data in this way is already guilty of an offence.
The additional amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are designed to catch the person who, in addition to procuring the data, sells and offers to sell the data. This is intended to cover some of the concerns that lay behind Lords amendment No. 131, which, as I have explained, is unacceptable in its width. Those concerns were principally to combat the advertising and sale of improperly obtained information—companies which specialise in commercial activities of the nature to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred.
6.45 pm
The Government's amendments to Lords amendment No. 150 are deliberately aimed at sales and advertisements offering to sell. We believe that they do not need the further extension that would be made in the amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Although I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central's point of view—I can understand the way in which he wants to widen the amendment—I must advise the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Darling: I shall reply to the debate briefly. First, it is important to realise that Lords amendment No. 131

deals with information obtained by deception and without consent, so those elements are necessary in order to constitute the offence. The amendment would therefore not cover information that was legitimately passed around in an organisation, because there would not be deception and there might well be consent.
The second point was the question of press freedom. The Opposition have no desire whatsoever to limit investigative journalism—would that there were more of it. The problem the law faces is that it cannot discriminate between a member of the public and a journalist, because a journalist is a member of the public who happens to be engaged in the business of writing. It is not possible within the framework of the law to put journalists in a privileged position.
The mischief that we now face, where people are willing to obtain financial information by deception and without the consent of the individuals concerned and then sell it, ought to be stopped. Every one of us has substantial amounts of information held by banks and financial institutions. As I have said, I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing additional protection so far as the Data Protection Act 1988 is concerned.
The point of Lords amendment No. 131 and our amendment would be to cover cases that are not covered by the Data Protection Act. A lot of information is held that is not covered by the Act, and the amendments would ensure that anyone who tried to obtain that information dishonestly, by deception or without the consent of the individual concerned would face a criminal offence.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by Government Members, that the Government will have to consider these matters sooner or later. But frankly, to say that we must wait for the Government's consideration of the Calcutt report does not carry much weight.
If I remember rightly, the Calcutt report was prepared in 1990 or 1991, and we still have not had the Government's response. The matter raises some delicate political problems and Government Members may now take a different view on the freedom of the press from that which they took before the election, because the press have—for the moment, at any rate—turned their unwelcome attention on the Government.
It is not our function to try to curtail the legitimate activities of investigative journalism, but I am concerned that there are individuals in this country who are in the business of obtaining confidential financial information, and at the moment there is nothing to stop them. It has affected me and other hon. Members who have experienced people trying to get into their bank accounts and to get information, and members of the public generally look to Parliament to protect their privacy. I am sorry that the Government have taken the view that they have, and for that reason we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Simon Hughes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Several colleagues and I have come immediately from No. 7 Millbank. We took the same lift, and we got here as quickly as we could. We have just missed the Division because it was impossible to get here in the time allowed—I do not know how many minutes were allowed


for the Division. I wonder whether you could allow the Doors to the Lobby to be reopened to allow us to vote, as we came as quickly as we could.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): No, I am afraid that I cannot allow that. I have taken account of the fact that we recently had a Division in the House, so I think that hon. Members had warning that further Divisions were likely.

Ms Clare Short(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a Division about an hour ago, but those of us who have to work in our offices in Millbank have to return to them in order to do our job properly. We all know that we have to leave that building the minute the Division bell goes—we sometimes run down the stairs if necessary.
We left instantly the bell rang and ran across to the House—we did not delay. Earlier, we were given a clear undertaking from Madam Speaker that discretion would be exercised to allow the Doors to be reopened if a Division was not called at a fixed time, as happened just now. I appeal to you to reconsider your decision, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we were given a promise, and we all came here as fast as was physically possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I was not in the Chamber previously, and I did not hear what Madam Speaker said. Obviously discretion may be used at a particular moment when a decision has to be made, but I am not aware of any suggestion that something will happen for ever more; otherwise, we would need to alter the normal arrangement whereby we have a set amount of time for a Division.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of what has been said by you and other hon. Members, it is within your power to order a new Division to be called to enable those hon. Members who could not get here, through no fault of their own, to record their votes on this important matter. It would not delay business.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have considered the matter, but I am staying with my original decision, that I will not reopen the Doors and allow further time.

Mr. Greville Janner(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am one of the inhabitants of No. 7 Millbank. I always have to run over to vote. When I inquired, Madam Speaker said that, when it is a first vote, she does, as a matter of discretion, allow extra time before the doors are locked. If it is a matter of discretion, colleagues can be locked out, as has happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House on this occasion.
Would you be kind enough, please, to talk to Madam Speaker to see whether an extra two or three minutes can be added to the first Division of a series, so that colleagues can get over here? It is difficult even for the able-bodied to get to the House in time, but it is impossible for those who are not able-bodied. My only parliamentary win against the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) occurred when I got here in time

to vote and he did not, but he left Millbank much later than I did. Even that hon. Member has been locked out of the Lobby on occasion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the fact that difficulties arise from time to time and I have, on occasion, exercised that discretion. But tonight, people had due warning that votes could be expected at various times. I shall draw this matter to the attention of the Speaker and further consideration may be given to the general principles involved. I think that that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.

The House having divided: Ayes 246, Noes 279.

Division No. 311]
[6.46 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davidson, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Anderson, Ms Janet
Dewar, Donald


(Ros'dale)
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Austin-Walker, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Enright, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunkett, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chidgey, David
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Church, Judith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John[...]


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Henderson, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)[...]
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Jean
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Parry, Robert


Hutton, John
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lewis, Terry
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McKelvey, William
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Timms, Stephen


McWilliam, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wallace, James


Milburn, Alan
Walley, Joan


Miller, Andrew
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Brian


Mowlam, Marjorie
Winnick, David


Mudie, George
Wise, Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr Eric Illsley and


Olner, William
Mr John Cummings




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert





Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Garnier, Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Gillian. Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg " Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John






MacKay, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trimble, David


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Richards, Rod
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond S.
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Willetts, David


Sackville, Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Simon Burns.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

After Clause 136

Lords amendment: No. 132, to insert the following new clause—Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress—
In Part I of the Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

4A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening,  abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.".")

Read a Second time.

7 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 5, after 'if, insert `recklessly or'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments are to a new clause that was introduced into the Bill in Committee in the other place. The new clause is entitled "Harassment, alarm or distress". It seeks to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence. The original debate on the matter arose after much pressure and lobbying, and engaged a lot of interest. The new clause inserts a new section into the Public Order Act 1986, which states:
a person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
There follows a definition of where that offence can be committed. The section says:
An offence … may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
The mischief against which this new clause is intended to act is committed when one person is outside a dwelling and another person is also outside, or when one person is outside and another is inside. Put simply, if someone lives in a property in, say, Deptford, Bermondsey or Rotherhithe, and someone outside in the street acts in such


a way as intentionally to alarm, harass or distress that person through the use of language, behaviour or writing, they commit the offence. That is absolutely acceptable to me. I am sure that it is acceptable to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and I hope that it is acceptable to the House. There will be no dissent from the fact that we must act against people who behave in such a way that they interfere in the private lives of other people by harassing them or causing them alarm or distress.
Some people doubt whether the clause is tough enough. The general view held by the communities in urban constituencies is that it is not. The general view is that it is difficult to nail people for what the Prime Minister calls "the yob culture" and extreme anti-social behaviour. It is often difficult to pursue people to the courts and secure a conviction for such crimes. Although the clause is welcome and will improve matters, it will certainly not be the end of the story because it will not be tough enough.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I agree with what he has said thus far, but I am puzzled as to why the new clause does not specifically include a criminal act of racial harassment, racial violence or incitement to racial hatred. I cannot understand the thinking behind a clause of this importance not addressing specifically an issue of enormous concern and danger to many people, particularly in inner urban areas such as the hon. Gentleman and I represent.

Mr. Hughes: That is a matter of dispute around the House. The hon. Gentleman is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has similar experiences, probably almost as regularly as we do. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has introduced a Bill that has all-party support and seeks expressly to provide for an offence of racially motivated crime. We must not be mealy mouthed about the matter—racially motivated crime exists. Those of us who represent inner urban areas—actually, it applies throughout the country—know perfectly well that people are willing to express racist views and, when people are not looking, behave in a racist way, often egged on by others. The most undermining activity of which anyone can be a victim is that which singles one out for aggression, abuse or intimidation for something that one cannot change—something that concerns the victim, not how he or she behaves. The law must be tough on activity based on a discriminatory view of other people which in the mind of the perpetrator justifies that behaviour. Such behaviour happens in my constituency and I am ashamed about it. It also happens in many others, if not all others, represented in the House.
It can therefore be argued that we need an offence of racially motivated crime. The answer given by the Government is that a better way to deal with it is to increase the sentence if the crime is seen to be racially motivated. This issue will not go away and no matter whether the new clause is accepted by the House today and becomes law, as I believe that it will within the next few days, the matter will come back because many people will not feel that the law goes far enough.
Having understood the debate in another place and had perfectly courteous discussions with the Minister's predecessor about the issue, I anticipated that at this stage we would not move the Government on this issue. I have therefore chosen two much simpler amendments which,

even at this stage, I hope to persuade the Minister to accept. I realise that Ministers come to these debates with briefs prepared by civil servants and give wonderful lists of arguments why such amendments should not be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State did a good job in his previous post and I welcome him to his new post. I hope that he will be brave and, once he has heard the arguments, say that the two amendments can be accepted because they deal with two specific but important points.
First, let us accept that the clause deals with harassment, alarm and distress generally, without singling out racism. I want the Minister to accept that there are two ways—intentionally or recklessly—in which someone could cause that harassment, alarm and distress.
I have been trained as a lawyer. Something that a criminal lawyer learns almost ad nauseam is the difference between the states of mind that people have to be in if there is to be a conviction. For a conviction of intent, ultimately a jury or the magistrates have to find not just that an activity happened, but that the accused intended it to happen. Often, that is difficult to prove. It is much easier to prove that someone has behaved in a way that was careless as to the consequence or that was not thinking as to the consequence, because we can then draw an inference that any reasonable person would have known what the consequence would be.
I want the Government to change the law so that it provides that if anyone uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, disorderly behaviour, writes graffiti, racist comments or whatever, or by using signs or other acts behaves in a way that is abusive, threatening or insulting, and he is aware that that might just cause harassment, alarm or distress, he should be found guilty.
For example, someone may approach a house in Peckham, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Deptford, Rochdale, Islington, Stalybridge or your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. He may not know whether anyone is in the house, but he knows that, for example, a black family, an Asian family, a mentally disordered person such as an adult with learning difficulties, someone who is physically disabled or other people in all sorts of circumstances used to live there. Perhaps somebody who was anti-social—a difficult and cantankerous individual—used to live there. He may not say, "I want to get the person in that house", but he is careless and mindless of the consequences of his action and should be guilty of an offence. That is the only way that we can be sure that we deal with such people effectively.
If intent has to be proved in a court, I can guarantee that many cases will not be proceeded with by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, so they will not get to court and people will not learn a lesson. They will get away with their behaviour when they should be convicted. I make this serious plea from my recollection of how the law works—I remember it all too well—and my understanding of how society works, which is something that we all have as Members of this House.
The second amendment is similarly simple and, I hope, persuasive. It would remove from line 19 the two simple words "or another". I want to make it possible for someone to be guilty of causing harassment, alarm or distress if he is in one building but is having a go at somebody in another building. The House held a debate last year on the question of neighbour noise and noise nuisance. The Mail on Sunday has run a good campaign and an increasing amount of publicity is being given to


the issue. A fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference that debated it was very well attended. Neighbour noise is the bane of people's lives. It can literally drive people mad or to suicide.
Some weeks ago, I attended a press conference on the issue in the Jubilee Room. Spike Milligan and others were there on behalf of the campaign for peace and quiet. The hon. Member for Erit and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was there. Other colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), support the campaign, the aim of which is to clamp down on rowdy, nuisance neighbours. There are plenty of them and they behave as though there was nobody else on God's planet. They yell out of windows, sometimes throw cans and rubbish out of windows, and have hi-fi's or stereos blasting out of windows, especially in summer.
It must be made absolutely clear to people that if they own or occupy a property and they behave not necessarily with intent, but in a carless and mindless way, are not bothered whether they keep their neighbours up all night, and blast the person on the other side of the estate, in the block opposite, or on the other side of the street. they should be nicked.
I take a tough view of such behaviour: not only should such people be nicked, but their property should be confiscated. We need to modify the law to make it tougher. There could be a first and a second warning, but then such people should be taken away and put overnight in a place that will remind them that blasting the diving daylights out of their community is not acceptable.
7.15 pm
If the law is toughened in the way that the Government propose, all that it will allow is somebody to be nicked if he is in the street and the victim of the nuisance is in the house. However, that is not what usually happens. I accept that an offence is caused if noisy drunkards run up and down a street shouting. That happens occasionally in Bermondsey and other places. However, it is more often the case that somebody in a property is blasting his stereo or yelling out of the window and making life a nuisance. I want that person to be prosecuted. Tough legislation would signal our intent and we would make progress.
I know that the Government are consulting on the issue—that is always their defence. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beth) wanted to introduce legislation on payment of interest on debt, the Government said that they opposed that because they were consulting on the issue. They have been consulting for decades; yet everybody knows that it would be a good idea. The Government have issued a consultation paper on noise and I am grateful for that. However, we now have an opportunity to move in a way that I believe will unite the House, provide legislation that will work and not preclude debates on what else we do after that.
I want noisy neighbours to be aware that they are acting criminally, not just anti-socially. If such behaviour is clearly illegal, police, environmental health officers and others can act to make communities places worth living in again.
People have been driven to suicide, driven mental or driven to attacking others in their home by noisy neighbours and anti-social behaviour. I do not think that

that applies to any particular part of the country—it is applicable to all areas. It is as applicable to Luton, where I have been many times, as to anywhere else. I see that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is in the Chamber.
I hope that the Minister will say, "It is not or idea; we would not have gone so far, so quickly, but it is a good point." I hope that the Minister will at least concede that the argument is valid. Even if he needs a minute or two to take advice, I hope that he will then say that the Government will accept the amendment. I advise him to be brave. He will then become the most popular Minister in the Government today—[Interruption.] I accept that on this day, of all days, that is not saying a lot. However, if he accepts both amendments he will be one step ahead and his future will be assured.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank the Government for their response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations on racial harassment. I want to flag my concern on behalf of the Committee about the one element that the Government have not seen fit to support: what we said about intent. Through amendment No. 132, the Government have, as we asked, taken into account the seriousness of many of the actions that make up racial harassment. They have not called it racial harassment, but it comes under the same heading—the daubing on the wall, the swastika and other such appalling behaviour.
The Government have also created an arrestable offence, which is what the Committee recommended and they have increased the maximum penalty from a fine to imprisonment, again as we recommended. I am grateful for that.
But we also said that police officers at Plumstead considered that the requirement of an intent, which is present in Lords amendment No. 132, made it difficult for them to bring effective charges—few criminal charges for harassment of any sort have ever been brought or, if brought, have succeeded. That issue is relevant to the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The police told us that they considered it a drawback as it was so easy for an accused person to say, "I had no idea that my words were likely to or may have caused that offence." Such a line meant that magistrates often gave those accused of the offence the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, the Crown Prosecution Service would often think that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
We therefore suggested that it was not necessary to have a subjective test and that it was preferable to have an objective test as to whether a reasonable man would have considered his actions likely to have that effect. The police in Plumstead said that that would help them considerably. I understand that the Government have not been keen to adopt such a policy.
I have not had an opportunity to discuss the subject with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but I understand that "recklessness" would provide a halfway house between dropping the necessity for intent, and intent. If I am right on that, I must say on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that I have some sympathy with the submission made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
One issue that I am sure about—as was the Select Committee on Home Affairs—is that the legislation on the subject needed to be toughened up. There will


inevitably come a time when the pressures of immigration and asylum on these shores will be even greater because of what is happening in the rest of Europe. In those circumstances, from time to time, the reaction of the indigenous community will, alas, be to revert more frequently to racial hatred and the sort of response that follows. Now is the time to dig in our defences and prepare ourselves so that the law is adequate to the task of protecting people, whether black or white, against the sort of sickening harassment that now occurs in our society less frequently that it may do in future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the action that he has taken to support the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. But I ask him to take seriously the important need to strengthen this aspect of the law—if not now, in the future—so that it provides adequate protection for those whom it is our task and duty to protect.

Ms Joan Ruddock: We have some sympathy with th words and the amendments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and look forward to hearing the Minister's response. We have not been completely satisfied in any way and cannot echo the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) who believed that we had been given an adequate response to the case involving the problems of racial violence made in the House and in the Select Committee.
In response to Opposition and all-party amendments, Government spokespeople, both in Parliament and outside, have repeatedly expressed concern about racially motivated crime. But the undertaking given in the House and acted on in another place has produced nothing more than a tougher version of the existing public order offence in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Standing alone, that is totally inadequate to the task of dealing with the huge and rising tide of racial violence.
I cannot remind the House too often that there were an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 racial incidents in England and Wales last year. Those incidents range from daubing, spitting and graffiti to the most severe violence and, indeed, murder. Yet, by the Government's own admission, only one in 20 such incidents are reported to the police. Those that are reported must be recorded as racial incidents, but there is no requirement to record the clear-up rates, which makes it difficult to judge the effectiveness of existing law.
The one sector for which we have figures for prosecutions and convictions under public order legislation involves cases of incitement to racial hatred, where the figures are not impressive. In 1990, there were 45 prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred and only four convictions. In 1991, there were 65 prosecutions and only three convictions. Against that backdrop of inaction, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that the Lords amendment hardly inspires confidence.
The Government's failure to specify racial harassment and racial violence in any of their Lords amendments sends a more powerful signal to our ethnic minority communities than any crocodile tears of sympathy for victims.

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady accept that, where a criminal court is dealing with any criminal offence and

racial motivation is proved, under existing law the court has the right to treat that as an aggravating factor and impose a more severe penalty than it would otherwise?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I think that he will know that amendments were tabled in the House that would have made it mandatory to seek out any racial motivation and bring it to the courts. The problem is that often such motivation is not properly examined or researched, and the evidence is not brought to the courts. The procedure suggested by the hon. Gentleman can often not be applied in practice. Many examples of that have been cited in previous debates.
In another place Lord Ferrers sought to justify the omission of the issue of race. He said:
Proving motivation … is particularly difficult."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1864.]
As the hon. and learned Member for Burton has said, the amendment requires proof of intent. Does the Minister honestly believe that intent is less difficult to prove than racial motivation? Will he put his explanation on the record tonight, as it will be important to those who try to bring cases under the new legislation?
Lord Ferrers also sought to justify the exclusion of race on the ground that the same punishment should be available for behaviour causing the same distress. He illustrated his point by citing offensive behaviour directed at people in wheelchairs. In doing so, he was not comparing one individual with another individual, but citing a class of people. He implied that the legislation must apply equally where the victim is harassed because he or she belongs to a definable group. Will the Minister confirm that, by virtue of not containing the term "racial", the amendment applies equally to sexual harassment, harassment on the grounds of sexuality or disability, as well as to race? It is important that we have an explanation. Those organisations that represent the large numbers of victims of those various forms of harassment will take a keen interest in the Minister's response.
Finally, I should like further clarification of the Government's intentions. I recently received a report from the Lewisham racial equality council, which stated that in just eight months it had found 175 cases of racial harassment on local housing estates in that borough alone. The report cites examples that I shall read to the House. It states that one family received a total of 10 threatening notes, one of which included the words:
How many times do we have to say it. Leave as quick as you came, niggers are not welcome, especially when they drive fancy cars".
7.30 pm
The report continues:
Two maisonettes were daubed with racist graffiti; two eight year olds were chased by a boy with a knife; one youth estimated he was harassed every single week for 2 years; people were called "nigger", "black bitch" as a matter of routine; people had stones and eggs thrown at them; one woman had a lighted match thrown in her face, families had their windows were smashed; dog excrement was smeared over doors and cars.
Will the Minister reassure those victims that the amendment provides the means of ending their misery? Will he explain to us how we will know whether it has? He knows that although there are tens of thousands of incidents recorded under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, there is no record or analysis of those that are deemed to be racially motivated offences. Therefore, I


submit that the amendment, which takes the form of a new clause, has the great weakness that it is a "catch-all clause", although that might be regarded as a strength. The fact remains that the Government came to the House proposing to deal with racially motivated offences and offering us the amendment. How will we know how effective it is if, as at present, there is no mechanism for describing the different types of offences that occur under section 5? If there is to be no monitoring of the racially motivated nature of some offences, no one will be able to judge whether the Government's stated intentions have been realised. Will the Minister clarify that point?
The Government have chosen to ignore all the proposals to deal with racial harassment and racial violence made by the Opposition, most of those made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and those from numerous expert organisations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Anti-Racist Alliance and other interested community groups.
We appreciate the fact that something has been done. We shall not oppose the amendment. The stronger powers of arrest and greater penalties are much to be welcomed, but experience leads us to doubt the Government's commitment and intention to deal with racism. Many hon. Members and many more people outside will not rest until the scourge of racism has been removed from our society. Legislation has a part to play, but much more needs to be done. However, legislation can send a powerful signal to victims and potential victims, to perpetrators and potential perpetrators. I have no doubt that the amendment will prove inadequate to the task. I have no doubt that we shall make further attempts to amend the law to make it more powerful in dealing with racial harassment and violence, but the Minister now has the opportunity to tell us how he believes that the amendment will deal with the misery, violence and cruelty inflicted on people of different colour and different race.

Mr. Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) who has spoken on this matter many times and who will no doubt continue to do so until we manage to change the law.
I find the amendment rather strange. It contains some truisms about harassment—no one is ever in favour of harassment—but it is weak in dealing with the crucial factor.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I represent a multi-racial, inner-city community where, tragically, although racial violence and harassment is not rife it does exist. Much of it goes unreported because, as in some areas outside London, there is either a lack of confidence that the police will investigate or a belief that nothing can be done.
Asian families are afraid to walk the streets at night; black people are afraid to go down certain streets or into certain areas; Indian families have excreta pushed through their letter boxes; people are sent firebombs and phone threats, abuse and hate mail but feel wholly unable to do anything about it. They feel constantly harassed throughout their lives and believe that there is no redress or support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said that there were more than 100,000 reported cases of racial harassment in Britain last year. I suspect that the figure is very much higher for cases that could be reported or in which action could be taken if there were, a specific offence of racial violence rather than, as the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said in an intervention, courts being able merely to consider race as an exacerbating factor once the case had gone to court. My point is that it is extremely difficult to get such cases to court in the first place.
Racial harassment is a Europe-wide phenomenon. It is increasing not only in this country but especially in France, Germany and Scandinavia. The introduction of a proper law to deal with racial violence would have two effects. The first is that all police stations would be forced to take racial cases seriously rather than simply recording them if that is the wish of those "either side of the counter", so to speak. Secondly, such a law would perhaps mean that a prosecution could be brought more quickly. At present, it is often difficult to acquire proof in, for example, cases of harassment of neighbours. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly how the Government plan to deal with racism and racial violence.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned problems between neighbours. There are many problems facing people who live in high-density, urban areas housing. They include harassment caused by noise, disturbance, differing life styles or—dare I say it—even by building design. Many flats and houses are ludicrously designed. Housing in my area is largely late Victorian and was built cheaply in the first place; often, conversions are done cheaply and, for that reason, there is no soundproofing or sound insulation. It means that what one family consider normal behaviour can be terrorism for the family above or below, even though such behaviour can simply be the problem of five or six-year-old children running around a flat.
People who live in detached or semi-detached houses might find it difficult to understand what it is like for people who live in the kind of environment that I have described. I have no truck whatsoever with people who play loud music out of their windows, who threaten violence or harassment or who attack their neighbours to such an extent that they are frightened to go near the police, Members of Parliament, councillors or clergymen, but we should also consider what causes the problems in the first place.
This particularly awful legislation could have provided us with an opportunity to do some good for one group of especially victimised people in our society—those who are racially attacked or harassed—but the opportunity appears to have been completely lost. However, people outside the House have noticed that fact and realised that something must be done. We cannot go on watching the daily toll of racial violence and harassment while nothing is done by those in positions of power. We cannot allow that to continue. It is wrong that anyone should feel fear when walking the streets of his or her own community, or should feel afraid of going out in the morning. It is wrong that children should feel afraid at school. That situation can turn into copycat racial violence.


The opportunity has been missed in the Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to return to it in the new Session. Opposition Members will keep returning to it until we can remove the scourge of racism and racial violence from our society.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): We have had a good debate, and I must say at once that the Government share the concern about racial harassment and the other forms of harassment mentioned in the debate. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the clause is tough, and that toughness may have been underestimated in the debate. It closes a gap in the law and creates an offence of intentional harassment, which will enable the courts and the police to deal more effectively with serious forms of deliberate racial harassment. The new offence provides the police with an immediate power of arrest, thereby enabling them to take swift action against the perpetrators of those odious crimes. A maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000 is also provided for.
In order to justify those increased powers and penalties, it will be necessary to prove that the action of the defendant was intentional and that someone was actually harassed. Although the offence is clearly aimed at combating racial harassment, race is not mentioned in the clause. The explicit inclusion of race would require that the racial motivation of the defendant be proved. In saying that, I believe that I am responding to two of the main concerns expressed in the debate.
Motivation is extremely difficult to prove. It is a subjective matter, far more difficult than intent. To prove racial motivation is difficult, too, and it is right that other forms of harassment are also covered by the clause—the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) mentioned that. For example, disabled people and homosexuals should be covered by the offence, and they are.
We examined the Select Committee's report carefully, and have accepted a good number of its recommendations, including the further action needed to alert the Crown Prosecution Service and other arms of the legal weaponry of the judiciary, so that they are aware of, and on the lookout for, racial harassment. We share the determination to do everything that we can to stop it.
I shall now deal with some specific points that were raised. I do not quite share the concern of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee, about intent being all that difficult to prove. Indeed, the police say to us that they do not regard it as such. Where conduct is deliberate, malicious and targeted, such as regular abuse, it displays clear intent, and should not be difficult to punish by using the new tough weapon provided by the clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: I should be grateful if I could go on, because I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend goes on to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, may I ask one? It is obvious that some police officers—those whom the Select Committee saw—thought that intent was an obstacle to prosecution and conviction. Other police

officers—those who have advised my hon. Friend and the other Ministers—think the contrary. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, should the number of prosecutions and convictions under the harassment provisions added to the Bill not be substantially larger than the nuber taking place now, the Government will undertake to reconsider the matter with a view to toughening the provision, perhaps by removing the requirement of intent? If my hon. Friend agreed to that, it would give some comfort to those of us who are slightly dissatisfied with the Government's response.

Mr. Baker: I understand my hon. and learned Friend's concern, and although I cannot give an undertaking on future action, I can assure him that we shall keep the matter under close review, and will watch to see precisely what the new offence achieves. That undertaking also meets one of the concerns of the hon. Member for Deptford.

Ms Ruddock: May I clarify that point? The purpose of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would be served if statistics were produced, and we could make a comparison between what is happening now and what happens in future. My argument adds to that the need to distinguish between different kinds of offence within the group. It is important to us to know whether it is racial incidents or other kinds of incident that are dealt with in that way.

Mr. Baker: I hope that, in examining how the offence works in practice, we shall consider all kinds of harassment. I cannot say how those will be categorised, but I hear the hon. Lady's request, and of course we shall consider the matter closely, because it is important.
Several hon. Members said that the offence should mention racial harassment in particular. I must tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others that we believe that avoiding a specific reference to racial harassment will make it easier to secure prosecutions. As I have said, it would be very hard to prove racial motivation. I should not like, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like, to see prosecutions fail for that reason.

Mr. Corbyn: Unfortunately, many attempts at prosecution and eviction by local authorities for racial violence and racial harassment have failed precisely because there is no specific law dealing with that. There is nothing on earth to stop a subsection saying, "and a motive based on racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred" being added to the clause. That would be an addition to the armoury of the law against such people. I fail to understand what point the Minister is making. Again, he seems to be trying to avoid the basic issue that we need a law that outlaws racial harassment and racial violence, and makes them a criminal offence, as they should be.

Mr. Baker: The clause covers that kind of harassment, as it does others. If one tries to prove racial motivation one makes it harder to get a prosecution, and that is not what the hon. Gentleman would want. I believe it right that there should be similar penalties for other forms of harassment, and I believe that the hon. Member for Deptford is with me on that.


My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made a sensible point when he said, rightly, that in other crimes racial motivation is well recognised as an aggravating factor that the courts should take into account. That point has got rather left behind.
Now I shall speak briefly about the amendments, and the reason why I cannot accept them. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132 would weaken the test of intent by including within the offence behaviour that was reckless, but not actually intended to cause harassment. The test of intent was included in the new offence in order to distinguish it from the existing offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and to justify a custodial sentence. Not just from having spent a great deal of my life in Peckham, but from living in London generally and having heard many examples of neighbourhood noise, I do not regard a custodial sentence as the right remedy for such neighbour problems. Indeed, there are remedies under the Public Order Act 1986.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I put it to the Minister that resisting the addition of the word "recklessly" does not meet the concern. The Minister nows my borough. In the past few weeks, I have had at my surgery a black family, a gay couple and some disabled people who have all been badly harassed. Let us imagine that somebody had attacked the homes of those people when they were not in them, careless as to whether they were in them or not and believing that that is where they might have been. Such attackers should be convicted if they were careless or reckless about whether someone was there or not. One could not convict them if one had to prove that they intended that the person who lived there should be the victim. That is the present weakness.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), supporting the argument, has sought to persuade the Minister—I still seek to persuade him—that such an action is deserving of custody, whether of a short or long period. A person deserves custody if he or she is not bothered about whether somebody is being harassed by his or her actions. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable consequence.

Mr. Baker: The word "recklessly" applies to a far lighter kind of behaviour than does the word "intent". Yet if conduct were deliberate, as I have said, malicious and targeted, which could certainly cover the type of conduct that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has described, it would, no doubt rightly, be caught by the new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 132.
Amendment (b) would make the offence inconsistent with other public order offences by extending its scope to include private acts committed when the defendant and victim were in different dwellings. That is why we have to be careful before invading neighbourhood disputes with a new clause as heavyweight as this. If we accepted the amendments, the result would be legislation that was neither clearly designed to tackle a specific type of crime nor consistent with public order provisions. I am afraid that I cannot, therefore, recommend to the House that we

should accept the amendments. I urge the House to reject both amendments and to agree with the Lords amendment, which would add the new clause.

Mr. Stephen: On the point of conduct in one dwelling affecting people in another dwelling, I have in my constituency many elderly people who live in flats or in semi-detached houses whose lives are made a misery by behaviour in the next-door flat or house. The behaviour may be shouting or screaming, playing loud music or banging on the wall. Those people are affected by the behaviour in the adjoining dwelling. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to keep the matter under review because it causes serious distress to many people, particularly elderly people.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has not dealt with many of the matters that have been brought to him. To start with the least important first, he has not said when the Government intend to do anything else about the general issue of nuisance, neighbours, noise and so on. I gave him the peg to hang that on because I put to him the fact that there was a consultation paper. We have not been told that there is a deadline or an end in sight.
Secondly, the one undertaking that the Minister has given is the mildest undertaking that Ministers can give—to keep things under review. There has not even been an undertaking—the debate in the House of Lords was clear about the need for it—that the Government will look at the issue, at what the Select Committee has proposed and at what all the organisations to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred have proposed, and that they will have the issue specifically on their agenda in the near future.
Thirdly, there have clearly been two concerns in the debate. One has been that under the general law—the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made the point that we can all make perfectly properly, and in which we support him—many of our constituents, particularly the vulnerable, often elderly single people, are effectively powerless. They find themselves at a huge disadvantage relative to the person next door, the person across the road or the person above or below. They need much more support.
Sometimes, the only way in which the neighbours understand the position is if they are threatened with losing their liberty. Custody need not be for six months; it could be for six days or for one night. Just as on the football field a player is told that he will not play in the next match, the courts could say, "You will be locked up for the weekend." The Dutch do that regularly. Their gaols are not nearly as full as ours because they send loads of people away for short periods. They give people a short, sharp shock. That is one point that we should have heard from the Minister.
Fourthly, there is a huge concern that the law will not be tough enough in dealing with harassment against minority communities in our society. I have learnt a lesson in this place—[Laughter]. This is an important point. The only people who can judge—

The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Derek Conway): I am here all the time.

Mr. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is here all the time and some of the London Members seem to be here most of the time, too.

The only way in which one can judge whether people feel that they are harassed or that the law is not tough enough is to ask them. White people, for example, cannot speak for the feelings of the black community or of Asian people. If such people say to us that the law is not tough enough, we must accept that. That was the lesson that some of us learnt, and which others did not learn, from the debate over the age of consent. If people say, "We feel discriminated against," it is not for the rest of us to say, "Oh no you don't." We are not the 16, 17 or 18-year-olds protesting outside the House of Commons. We are talking about people saying to the House, "The law needs to be toughened."
The Government are moving the goalposts. We concede that the Government have come up with some legislation that is better. However, we are saying—the House of Lords debate was clear—that this legislation will not ensure that we clobber people as we should. I am strongly of the view that the matter should be left for the House to decide. Therefore, I will not seek to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 183.

Division No. 312]
[7.58 pm


AYES


Austin-Walker, John
Maddock, Diana


Barnes, Harry
McFall, John


Bayley, Hugh
Michael, Alun


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Milburn, Alan


Bennett, Andrew F.
Murphy, Paul


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Olner, William


Burden, Richard
Pendry, Tom


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pickthall, Colin


Corston, Jean
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dafis, Cynog
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Dalyell, Tam
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Reid, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Rendel, David


Etherington, Bill
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Vaz, Keith


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wareing, Robert N


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Andrew


Hutton, John
Winnick, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Wray, Jimmy


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Archie Kirkwood and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ms Liz Lynne.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Sir Graham





Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs. Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Peter
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cash, William
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Legg, Barry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Lidington, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Congdon, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Luff, Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Maclean, David


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Malone, Gerald


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Merchant, Piers


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mills, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Duncan, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dunn, Bob
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Eggar, Tim
Norris, Steve


Elletson, Harold
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Forman, Nigel
Richards, Rod


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Riddick, Graham


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


French, Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gale, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gallie, Phil
Sackville, Tom


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gillan, Cheryl
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shersby, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sims, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hague, William
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harris, David
Stephen, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Sweeney, Walter


Hayes, Jerry
Sykes, John


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Hendry, Charles
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hicks, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Thomason, Roy


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trend, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jack, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Jenkin, Bernard
Ward, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel






Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Willetts, David
Mr. Michael Bates.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 142

INCREASE IN CERTAIN PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 141, in page 114, line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) For the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 3 of Part III of Schedule 8 to this Act that may be imposed under the enactments specified in column 2 of that Part of that Schedule on conviction on indictment, or on conviction on indictment or summary convction, of the offences mentioned (and broadly described) in column 1 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 4 of that Part of that Schedule.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

8 pm

Mr. Michael: It is necessary to point out to the House that there has been a change since we last debated this proposal during the earlier stages of the Bill. As on a number of occasions recently, we see the Government reluctantly and belatedly accepting a case that was made by the Labour party at an earlier stage of the Bill but rejected by Ministers. There was nothing in the Bill about firearms, violence, drugs, drug-related crime or many other serious issues until those matters were raised and pressed by Labour Members. Indeed, when the Government rather belatedly accepted that there was a need for action, Ministers had to tack the proposals on to the amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. That shows how reluctantly and late the Government came to recognise the importance of dealing with firearms penalties.
The amendment introduces a range of increased penalties for possessing, selling, repairing and supplying firearms, as we proposed. The amendment was tabled at 2 am in the House of Lords. Perhaps it would have been embarrassing for the Government to acknowledge such a volte face on the issue which we, of course, raised in detail in this House.
In Committee on 15 March, we proposed two new clauses—one to regulate the sale of weapons by mail order and the other to increase penalties for the possession of guns. The need for action is undisputed. Between 1986 and 1992, there was a 42 per cent. increase in crimes involving firearms in England and Wales.The link between drugs and guns is increasingly evident and it is frightening. There can be no excuse for illegally carrying guns and every reason to increase the penalty for so doing.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Condon, has warned us that we are being pushed by events towards the arming of the police. That was not a prediction, but a warning which, as we said in earlier debates, should be heeded by the Government who should

do all they can to reduce the availability and use of firearms and other weapons. However, when we proposed such a measure in Committee, the Minister refused to accept our amendment.
We tried again on Report on 12 April. The Government moved an amendment that dealt just with prohibited weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. That was far more limited than our proposals which the Minister suggested were
not on the right lines."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 961]
The Government voted against our amendments.
In the Lords, the Government moved the amendment under discussion which incorporated almost all our original proposals. In that debate, Earl Ferrers said:
it is important that the courts should have power to deal more severely than they do at present with illegal possession of firearms by criminals and their associates."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1782.]
Yet again, the Government have been forced to act after pressure from the Opposition. That is yet another climb down, but in so far as it accepts the case that we have made, I welcome it. However, the Government have still not acted to tighten the regulations in relation to mail order. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that he will tackle that issue in the next Session.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome the Minister's conversion on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly said, the Minister opposed the increases in penalties in our debates in Committee.
In Committee, I pointed out to the Minister that there had been a case in which a person had been arrested for possessing a large quantity of weapons. He possessed those weapons not to use them himself, but as an armourer. He hired out weapons to criminals who wished to carry out offences.
I have never believed that we can deal with crime simply by increasing penalties. It is sometimes possible to do that, but more often it is not. However, there are cases such as the one to which I have referred, where it is important to deal with cases where armourers possess weapons. Those people must be dealt with not just as ordinary people unlawfully possessing weapons, but as people who are making a business out of being unlawfully in possession of weapons and who make profits from that. They must be dealt with much more severely. We therefore need laws that allow the courts to deal with worst issue cases.
When that point was put to the Minister, he did not accept it. He said:
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said and I sympathise with the concerns that lie behind it. It is essential for us to ensure that proper penalties are available for unlawful possession of offensive weapons and unlawful dealing in and purchase of firearms. The Government's paramount concern … is public safety, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has the correct approach. The longer I listened to his speech, the more convinced I was that he was tackling the wrong problem. The existing maximum penalty for possession of an offensive weapon is already substantial and we feel that it adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence and provides the courts with the necessary powers to deal with the worst examples of the offence that come before them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1357.]


The Minister has undergone a great and welcome conversion. It is another example of his road-to-Damascus politics. We hope that he will be converted to other Labour party policies on law and order. Perhaps in due course, he will be saying in his sleep, "I'm tough on crime and the causes of crime." Perhaps that is the first step towards his doing a jig in his sleep to the tune of Die Tannenbaum.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

After Clause 145

Lords amendment: No. 150, insert the following new clause—Procuring disclosure of computer-held personal information—

("Obtaining computer-held information

,—(1) In section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (prohibitions in relation to personal data, including its disclosure), after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6) A person who procures the disclosure to him of personal data the disclosure of which to him is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above knowing or having reason to believe that the

disclosure constitutes such a contravention shall be guilty of an offence.".

(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above—

(a) in subsection (5) of that section, after the word "other" there shall be inserted the word "foregoing"; and
(b) in section 28 (exemptions: crime and taxation), in subsection (3)—


(i) after the word "contravening" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of section 5(2)(d) procuring the contravention of"; and
(ii) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the words "or (in the case of section 5(2)(d)) to procure".")

Read a Second time

Amendments made to the Lords amendment:
(a) in line 4, leave out 'its'
(b) in line 5, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
(c) in line 10, at end insert—
'(7) A person who sells personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured the disclosure of the data to him.
(8) A person who offers to sell personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured or subsequently procures the disclosure of the data to him.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.
(10) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) above, "selling", or "offering to sell", in relation to personal data, includes selling, or offering to sell, information extracted from the data.
(11) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (6), (7) or (8) above, whether a disclosure is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above, section 34(6)(d) below shall be disregarded.".'.
(d) in line 16, leave out 'word "contravening'" and insert 'words "section 26(3)(a) above".'.
(e) in line 17, leave out from 'words' to 'and' in line 18 and insert
"'or for an offence under section 5(6) above";'.

(f) in line 20, leave out '5(2)(d)' and insert '5(6)'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 152, to insert the following new clause—Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television—
.—(1) Without prejudice to any power which they may exercise for those purposes under any other enactment, a local authority may take such of the following steps as they consider will, in relation to their area, promote the prevention of crime or the welfare of the victims of crime—

(a) providing apparatus for recording visual images of events occurring on any land in their area;
(b) providing within their area a telecommunications system which, under Part II of the Telecommunications Act 1984, may be run without a licence;
(c) arranging for the provision of any other description of telecommunications system within their area or between any land in their area and any building occupied by a public authority.

(2) Any power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, any apparatus includes power to maintain, or operate, or, as the case may be, to arrange for the maintenance or operation of, that apparatus.
(3) Before taking such a step under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief officer of police for the police area in which the step is to be taken.
(4) In this section—
chief officer of police", in relation to a police area in Scotland, means the chief constable of a police force maintained for that area;
local authority"—

(a) in England, means a county council or district council;
(b) in Wales, means a county council or county borough council; and
(c) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and

telecommunications system" has the meaning given in section 4 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and "licence" means a licence under section 7 of that Act.
(5) Until 1st April 1996, in this section "local authority" means, in Wales, a county council or district council.")
Read a Second time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 21, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to control the use of any apparatus provided under subsection (1) above, and such regulation shall provide for—

(a) restrictions on such apparatus to prevent, where practicable, the surveillance of private residential premises without the consent of the majority of the occupiers of those premises;
(b) the provision for the display of notices to the public of the existence of any system using the apparatus;
(c) the selection, training and supervision of the operators of the apparatus;
(d) arrangements for the storage of, and access to, any recordings made;
(e) arrangements for access to the recordings by the subjects of those recordings;
(f) arrangements for the destruction of the recordings.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment (b) in line 27, leave out 'or district council' and insert
'district council, London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.'.


Lords amendment No. 176.

Mr. Michael: I will be brief because the amendment offers me an opportunity to raise a point and I hope to have a positive response from the Minister. Amendment (a) is narrower in scope than we would have liked. It requires a code of conduct in relation to closed-circuit television systems that are introduced and operated by local authorities. We should like a code of conduct that goes much wider than that, because local authorities are much more likely to be responsible and accountable to public interest than are other bodies that operate. such systems.
The amendment gives us an opportunity to point out the need for a code of conduct and I hope that the Minister will respond positively by accepting that there is a need for discussion on the issue and to achieve a code of conduct that would apply more widely than that proposed in our amendment. That is why we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
The reason for a code of conduct in relation to local government CCTV systems—I will not refer to systems outside local authority operations, but the same case would apply to them—is that organisations should learn from the experience that has been garnered by using systems in a variety of different circumstances. I say that, because some systems have been found to be unsuitable or inappropriate, either technically or in their location because lessons had not been learnt before they were installed.
We should learn from best practice because there is now a wealth of experience around the country—some positive and some not so positive. In other words, sometimes the investment has been cost effective and sometimes it has not. There is also a need to ensure that the public are properly protected against misuse such as inappropriate access to recordings or a failure to destroy them after a reasonable period.
The Lords amendment gives local authorities the power to provide CCTV. I understand that it has always been thought that that power existed and it is simply a matter of confirming that that is so and clearing up an anomaly following a query by a district auditor. It is reasonable that the point should be cleared up and that there should be no doubt. We therefore support the amendment in its attempt to achieve that.
My colleagues and I have encouraged that power. CCTV brings about greater protection of the public in city centres, for example. I argued for police access to the traffic television system in the centre of Cardiff for precisely that purpose—it helps in targeting police activity and it can discourage crime. Our concern is to make sure that that is done properly.
Of course, the greater infringement on liberty is to be the victim of a crime, which is why we support the use of such equipment in proper circumstances. At the same time, we must ensure that there is a proper system of regulation to prevent abuse. That becomes more necessary when the availability of such systems becomes wider and more comprehensive. Many local authorities and other organisations are using such systems. In general, the appropriate requirements are made by authorities when they set them up.
The Government should accept the need for such protection, whether it is by the police, local trusts, police authorities or large institutions such as health authorities in locations to which the public have access. As I have said, local authorities are more likely to observe a regulatory system—many that I have visited and inspected are doing so responsibly—than are other bodies, including some public bodies that are not as accountable to the electorate as local authorities are. The principle that is put forward is that there should be established a basic standard which should apply to CCTV schemes.
In May 1992, in the foreword to the Police Research Group publication, "Closed Circuit Television in Public Places", the then Under-Secretary of State wrote:
Further work is now under way looking at the actual effect CCTV systems have on crime and disorder in the streets.
The results of that work have not yet been published. They should be published. There should be an opportunity for discussion and a code of conduct, based on positive experience and on experience of cost effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will be his concern also and that it would be appropriate for the House to return to the issue not just in relation to local authorities but in the wider context at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that he will respond positively to those suggestions.

Mr. Bennett: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for a code of practice. I have always had considerable reservations about people being under television surveillance, but, having seen in the Stockport area in my constituency the use of closed-circuit television in big tower blocks, having noted how it has greatly improved the environment for the people who live in them, and having seen such equipment in Ashton town centre, I am prepared to accept that, provided there is a proper code of practice, the benefits might outweigh the disadvantages. However, it is very important that we have a proper code of practice and proper standards.
There are housing blocks in the Stockport part of my constituency. The housing authority has been tempted to increase the number of cameras, but not the number of staff who supervise them. If someone watches screens for a long time, their concentration tends to wander. If we are not careful, some systems might be undermined because they are not effective and people might not realise that if they misbehave on camera action will be taken. It is important that standards are set, that people are riot expected to watch screens for long periods without proper breaks and that they have to watch only a reasonable number of screens.
As for the Tameside part of my constituency, I pay tribute to Tameside council, which took the trouble to operate a town centre scheme. That involved the council putting up money. It was a major initiative by the council to defend and enhance Ashton town centre. Councillors also took the trouble to look at other places in the country where such schemes are in operation. They saw that the best systems involved police co-operation and supervision. Having looked at the system in operation in Ashton, the police understand the civil liberties issues involved. I wish that the installers of the equipment had shown the same efficiency, and I hope that some of the teething troubles have now been overcome.


As a member of the Environment Select Committee, I have also looked at one or two other town centre schemes. Standards vary considerably according to who has supervision, whether it is private security people or the police, and particularly according to who has access to areas in which cameras are located. Having seen the amusement of young security officers following a group of young girls on camera, I can understand that there is considerable scope for misuse. Now that the best cameras can zoom in on a car and enable us not only to read its number plate but to determine whether a tax disc is present, there is considerable scope for misuse.
I plead with the Government not only to make it necessary for local authority schemes to have a clear code of practice but to make sure that all schemes are subject to an enforceable code of practice to ensure that we benefit from closed-circuit television rather than infringe individuals' civil rights.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome the amendment and support the plea for a code of practice. I have been trying for some time in the town of Bedworth in my constituency, with the local chamber of commerce which was recently set up through the good offices of a number of local traders, the police and the local authority, to raise funding for a CCTV system in the town centre. We have had increasing problems with crime in Bedworth. One of the senior security officers for Boots the Chemists said that many of her workers refused to work in the town because of their fear of people coming into the shop and causing difficulties when stopped for shoplifting.
The police, the local authority and I thought that CCTV might be one way to approach the issue. The police have also adopted a policy of community policing, which is very welcome, but we think that CCTV might provide an added incentive for criminals to stay away from the town.
The problem, as always, is finance. The local authority has problems in finding the necessary money and the traders are hard-pressed after a very difficult recession. We need more Government funding. The Government have now come forward with a proposal involving about £40 million for a bidding system for local authorities. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Newspaper reports this week suggest that that figure is singularly inadequate. There is great demand among local authorities for such systems because of increased crime. The Government need to recognise the importance of CCTV and put more resources behind a bidding system, if that is the way they wish to operate it. CCTV is an important way of reducing crime. It is certainly supported by the police, and I very much hope that we will see more such Government action.

Mr. Beith: Closed-circuit television has proved to be a very useful tool in combating crime, particularly in town centres and on sites where there are considerable areas to watch. The way to regard CCTV is not, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) feared, as the surveillance of people, but as the surveillance of places to ensure that they remain safe.
It is only when people do wrong that they have anything to fear from CCTV. That has been the experience of police-operated systems in Northumbria. Police in Newcastle and Berwick are soon to use CCTV. When trained and accountable police officers are in charge of the operation, one has confidence that abuse can be avoided. There is no doubt about its value. It has led

to many prosecutions in the force area. None of the prosecutions in the Northumbria force area has been contested because the evidence on the film is so clear that guilty pleas are forthcoming immediately, which is a useful indication.
Obviously, there has been some misplacement of crime from areas served by closed-circuit television to other areas, which has been a bit of a spur to other places to set up systems. One of the features of the use of closed-circuit television is that it has been necessarily, until now, a crime prevention initiative involving the business community and others simply to finance the operation. It is good that businesses and other organisations have got together to set up such systems. I hope that we can continue to have a partnership through Government funding, business funding and community funding of various sorts so that everyone is involved in making a success of the scheme.
There will be an increasing need for codes of practice, not least because of the operation of closed-circuit television by people other than the police. The line between the proper use of closed-circuit television to protect the public and surveillance could easily be crossed, and we must build up a satisfactory means of preventing that. The operation is still in its infancy.
The Government can build up the kind of practice to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred, but they should be actively doing so in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the Minister can give us a commitment that he intends to keep a close eye on both the valuable development of closed-circuit television crime fighting and the safeguards that it will need.

Mr. Maclean: The Government have always backed, and consistently and enthusiastically welcome, the development of closed-circuit television schemes. There are dozens of highly successful schemes around the country. Most work with some Government safer cities funding or with money from the single regeneration budget in partnership with the police, local councils and, importantly, the business community.
The schemes have been successful, and the initiative that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced this week will build on that success and get the schemes into some of the smaller towns and cities because some of the large centres are already covered by many hundred-thousand-pound schemes. Recently, I opened a scheme in Warwickshire, and a scheme in Liverpool which I opened cost about £350,000. We should now like to see the initiative get down into smaller towns.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was not generous in his remarks about the initiative that we have announced. We expect dozens more smaller towns and cities to take some of the money and use it as pump priming for their partnerships.
Opposition Members claim that they invented the concept of partnership, admittedly years after the Government had been involved in such partnership initiatives. We will not hand over wadges of money to towns and tell them that it is the complete sum for CCTV and that they should get on with it. We will invite towns to get together with the private sector and the council in


their area, together with the police and any other people, and come to us with an initiative. They should then go into the partnership bidding round to get some of the millions of pounds that we are making available. That is how the partnerships already work; that is how we intend them to work.
Of course, the Government accept the need for close consultation between the police, local councils and the community when CCTV systems are being planned and developed. We are not convinced, however, that statutory regulations to control the use of CCTV are necessary or, indeed, desirable. Regulations setting out a statutory code of practice would inevitably be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible local responses, and that is where the tremendous success of CCTV has been.
Shortly, we will issue a good practice guidance booklet on the way in which CCTV can contribute to combating crime. The guidance is aimed at town centre managers, crime prevention partnerships and other groups that may be considering setting up CCTV schemes. The guide will recommend that a local code of practice should be developed for each scheme. As schemes vary widely in their nature and extent, with different operating requirements and different aims and objectives, each scheme will need an individually tailored code of practice to meet its local needs.
Our good practice guide will include advice about the main issues that a code of practice should address. It includes issues such as staffing, control room procedures, video tape handling and storage, spot checks and liaison with the police—in essence, the issues covered in the amendment.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued a policy statement on CCTV which supports that approach and offers the advice and guidance of the police service in developing effective schemes and codes of practice. Therefore, in view of the advice offered by ACPO, and in view of the Government's good practice guide which will be issued shortly, there is no need to establish a bureaucratic statutory framework to enforce the adoption of the codes of practice.

Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, I shall reply. I see that the Minister could not resist noting the references in the debate to the partnership approach. I cannot resist reminding him yet again that the Morgan report lies gathering dust on the shelf and that the Government have voted down the necessary statutory support for the partnership approach on a number of occasions in debates on both the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The Minister's recognition of our claim of having pushed forward the partnership approach both in the House and through the actions of many excellent Labour local authorities is well placed.
What we should have heard from the Minister is a promise to publish the research—presumably, it is the research on which his guidance will be based. We do not want more pontification by Ministers; we want a debate and advice which will be helpful for those operating such schemes. Policy statements and advice notes, whether from the Government or the Association of Chief Police

Officers, do not deal with the maverick users of CCTV, and that is what is required to provide protection for the public.
As I said before, we are well aware that local authorities in particular and many police forces have worked together in a positive way and, indeed, have placed sensible limitations and requirements on their schemes. The Minister again fails to recognise that there is a need to regulate those who do not voluntarily restrict themselves in a sensible way. Indeed, there is a wider need for regulation of the private security industry, especially in view of recent developments that threaten, in some cases, the safety and good order of local communities. I hope that that will be recognised by the Minister. I regret that it was not recognised in his response to this short debate. However, as I said earlier, because of the nature of the amendment, which is necessarily narrower than the one that we wished to table, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.[Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 153 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 147

SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNATD FOOTBALL MATCHES BY NAUTHORISED PERSONS

Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 120, line 6 at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")

Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from 'instrument' to 'sporting' in line 4 and insert
`apply this section, with such modifications as he thinks fit, to such sporting event or category of'
Government amendment (b), in line 4, after 'sale' insert `as he thinks fit'
Government amendment (c), in line 4, at end insert—
`(7) An order under subsection (6) above may provide that—

(a) a certificate (a "ticket sale certificate") signed by a duly authorised officer certifying that 6,000 or more tickets were issued for sale for a sporting event is conclusive evidence of that fact;
(b) an officer is duly authorised if he is authorised in writing to sign a ticket sale certificate by the home club or the organisers of the sporting event; and
(c) a document purporting to be a ticket sale certificate shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

(8) Where an order has been made under subsection (6) above, this section also applies, with any modifications made by the order, to any part of the sporting event specified or described in the order, provided that 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale for the day on which that part of the event takes place.'
Lords amendment No. 170.

Mr. Pendry: Clearly, we welcome the fact that Lord Donoughue's amendment was carried in another place with considerable cross-party support. I am glad that the Government have listened and accepted the amendment.


However, what we want from the Government tonight is acceptance that the principles that lie behind it are with them as well.
Following the Home Secretary's speech in Bournemouth, I am sure that the Minister will wish to heed the calls from the Police Federation to outlaw ticket touting at all major sporting events by supporting the Lords amendment, as well as enacting it. That is what many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to hear from the Minister tonight.
I understand that the All England lawn tennis club at Wimbledon, the Test and County Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and the Professional Golfers Association figure among those bodies which have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House with sporting interests—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Transport in London would be quiet for a moment, perhaps he might join us in supporting the amendment. Those bodies have written to Members on both sides of the House who entertain sporting interests. As I said on Report, this is a criminal justice Bill as well as a public order Bill. That is why we urge the Minister further to consider his position. There is clearly a criminal aspect, as well as a public order aspect, to ticket touting.
Similarly, we would urge the Minister to act on the overwhelming evidence pointing to the harm that ticket touting is doing to sports other than football, a point that the Government accepted earlier in the Bill's passage. According to the chief executive of the All England club at Wimbledon, ticket touting creates
a market for criminally obtained goods".
Two years ago at Wimbledon, tickets were stolen from the offices of the legitimate holder— [Interruption.] If the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) will listen to me, they may learn something. Within 24 hours, the tickets in question had been sold through a number of different outlets, all ticket touts, to unsuspecting victims who lost their money.
In another place, my noble Friend Lord Donoughue eloquently described the illegal activities of touts at Wimbledon, before the Lords gave the Bill its Third Reading. The Minister will also recall similar examples that I gave on Report—the German gentleman who was ripped off to the tune of £50,000 buying tickets for Wimbledon. I and others will be happy to supply the Minister with many more such examples— [Interruption.] There are not many Tory Members in the Chamber, but they are certainly an unruly bunch, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should remember that Lord Justice Taylor made his recommendations more than four years ago. Only a few months ago, I was sent a letter by an official of a major premier league football club stating:
In our view the typical ticket tout has changed significantly over recent years. Nowadays they appear much more aggressive when they approach our staff, and threats of physical violence or damage to their cars are common place. Customers approaching the box office are often intimidated into purchasing tickets on behalf of touts.
If the Minister needs further proof that touting gives rise to real crimes in a number of sports, I and others can supply him with evidence that fraud, theft and intimidation are all commonplace in ticket touting.
In the past, the Government have maintained that they do not see the activities of ticket touts as criminal. Over the years, I have received many letters from Ministers claiming that the aspects of criminality so clearly associated with ticket touting can be dealt with under existing law. The Minister himself repeated that argument on Report. So why, in his report, did Lord Chief Justice Taylor say, in justification of creating a new offence after the Hillsborough disaster:
Police should not have to stretch the law to deal with a public mischief. There should be a specific prohibition which the police can then enforce"?
That is what the police want; it is what the sporting bodies want; and it is what many in this House want, as the Minister must by now have realised.
The soundness of the principle behind my noble Friend's amendment caused Lord Ferrers to admit in the course of opposing it, on 19 July, that the Government were "in some difficulty". That difficulty can be avoided tonight by a clear-cut commitment on the part of the Minister to the effect that criminality in ticket touting will be carefully monitored with a view to enacting the new powers. We shall not oppose the Home Secretary's measure tonight, as we agree that there is likely to be a need for a discriminatory use of the powers. After all, the Home Secretary's modifications mean that he will be left to act as he sees fit. If he wants to add to his long list of duties and responsibilities, who am I to disagree? I hope that when he does act, his actions will be based on the real situation, not on the situation that he wishes existed.
We should also appreciate clarification from the Minister of how the clause will be implemented. How will he protect the ordinary, honest fan from possible prosecution if he buys a ticket for a friend? As the Bill stands, the fan who asks a friend to buy him a ticket in advance and then pays for it at face value on the train to a match or in another public place will be asking his friend to commit an offence. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, but what direction will he give the police and courts for such circumstances? These measures are designed to protect genuine sports fans; there should be no possibility, therefore, of their suffering as a result of the measures.
I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter and to assure us that the wider powers will be enacted. I should add that we do appreciate the Government's movement on this issue since last we debated ticket touting. All we now ask is that the Government show rather more determination in future to eradicate the growing menace of ticket touts.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Originally the clause was intended to deal specifically with football, but the amendment seeks to extend its powers. If we agree to the amendment, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) says, the powers will extend to all sporting activities for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale. That covers practically every large sporting event in the country.
In the hon. Gentleman's remarks just now we heard a great deal of envy and all the old stuff about hard cases making bad law. We always hear that when the subject of ticket touts comes up. As I have often said in this House, ticket touts are street traders. They are not necessarily especially nice people; they may be reprobates, but what


they are doing is not illegal and by and large it causes no offence—except to people who seem to object to touts making extra profits. That is pure envy.
My objection to the amendment is that it will widen the scope of the original intention far more than anybody anticipated. The clause was drawn up specifically with the Hillsborough tragedy in mind, when it was suspected that the sale of tickets on the day to opposing teams' supporters, who then got mixed up in the ground, might have been a contributory factor in the disaster. In fact, as I understand it, the tragedy was largely due to late entrants to the game and to crushing, not to internecine warfare between the two groups of supporters.
The point is that there has been a huge growth in the perfectly legitimate business of the sale and resale of sporting event tickets through agents. The amendments, however, will require all agents to be licensed or authorised in writing by a home club or by the organisers of a match. That virtually gives the people running a match control over the whole sale process. We do not accept that for other industries or businesses. Someone making socks in a factory does not control everyone who sells the socks on or distributes them—so why should we apply such rules to this industry?
A lot of hospitality entertaining goes on at football matches and at Wimbledon, and I imagine that some of our colleagues in this place have benefited from it on occasion. Unfortunately I have never had that privilege, but I still believe that the original wording was too loose, and that the measure should surely be restricted to the sale of tickets on the day, to enable those trading in tickets legitimately before a match to continue to do so. We should certainly not extend the idea to other sports. There is no evidence of the sort of disorder that the clause was intended to deal with being caused by the resale of tickets by street traders.
I believe that we have given the Home Secretary a dangerous extension of his powers. He will be able to make decisions by order and by statutory instrument. We all know that that means that he can more or less do what he likes on the nod without having to come back to this place. We know, too, that there are plenty of hon. Members who will always speak against street traders and touts, but very few who will stand up for their rights. But the point about a democratic system is the fact that even those of whom we do not necessarily approve still have the right to do what is legitimate, lawful and harmless. I disagree with the legislation and with the amendments, which would massively increase the powers that I have described. I urge the Government, who are dedicated to reducing restrictions, licensing and controls, not to go down that path and to reject the amendment.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke with her usual eloquence and clarity. She is absolutely right, as it seems remarkable that the Government, who have rightly been set on the path of deregulation, have seen fit to bring before the House—as they have done on a previous occasion—an amendment and a clause which will regulate the sales of tickets for sporting events. Frankly, such sales have nothing to do with us and for that, among other reasons, I regret that this debate had to take place.
May I address some remarks to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who is an old foe but has been promoted to what is known as shadow Minister for Sport. He showed tonight that he is the shadow Minister for Spoil-sport. He intended to try and stop those poor souls who—unlike him and me—do not have the privilege of access to tickets to sporting events. We have shared in attending notable sporting events at the behest and gratuitous request of other honourable bodies. I shall not say which commercial interests they might have represented. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to state which sporting events we have attended and who has been our host on those occasions—be they possibly tobacco companies—that is entirely up to him, but I shall not press that point.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I have enjoyed such events, but he is seeking to spoil other people's enjoyment and to tell them that they cannot get a ticket because those available are not legitimate and they cannot go to an authorised agent. The rugby fan from Wales who uses his life savings, or sells the tiles off his house, for the chance of buyig a ticket in a public house outside Twickenham to see his beloved team soundly beaten by the English side—as they usually are—would be denied that opportunity by the Bill, and more particularly by the provisions of the amendment.
I must briefly declare an interest, as I am a member of the Marylebone cricket club and also of a rugby club. I suppose that some might say that in sporting terms I am the Stan Flashman of the House of Commons. Several hon. Members—I see one has just arrived in the Chamber—have asked me if I could, quite legitimately, obtain for them tickets for certain sporting events. I confess that I have not declared that interest in the Register of Members' Interests because I gained no financial advantage for so doing. I did it on the basis that I felt sporting interest should spread throughout colleagues on both sides of the House. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said that she had missed out on my generosity and will certainly try to put that right.
On the basis of the amendment and the clause before the House I fear that my activities will not merely be curtailed but may cease altogether and many hon. Members would be extremely disappointed if they were no longer able to obtain tickets for such events.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said, there is a worry that, as a result of the Government amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to take powers to extend the provision beyond the range of football. That is a great worry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would not even consider that such powers might be necessary during the lifetime of this or any Conservative Government. Should the shadow Minister, the spoil-sport, ever be in a position of power, however, and see some disorder at a boxing match—perhaps like the disorder that the chairman of the Conservative party described so eloquently a few weeks ago as a minor difficulty within the crowd—he would immediately say that tickets could be sold only by authorised agents.
I am not totally against tickets being sold through authorised agents. The Rugby Football Union, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned, has a


good system whereby it sells tickets through clubs and has virtually cut out the chance of criminal activity through ticket touting.
I object to our having to pass legislation to ensure that only authorised agents can sell tickets. If the sports wish to sell tickets in that way, that is up to them. It is not for us to direct them in that way. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State is right to reject the Lords amendment. He knows that several of us do not like the clause in any way. If he can say anything to mitigate the damage to many companies, especially corporate hospitality companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was right about that—and the fact that genuine sportsmen will not be able to watch the events, I hope he will respond.
This is an ill-thought-out proposal, prompted by the Opposition in jealousy and envy because they cannot get the tickets that we legitimate sports fans can get hold of and it should have been rejected before now.

Mr. Maclean: I much njoyed the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). How spot on they were on so many issues. I have often had to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay—whether on salmonella, when I was an environment Minister or, at times, on law and order issues—but I agreed with almost every word that she said tonight.
In the Lords, we accepted the amendment that powers to deal with ticket touting be extended to other sporting events for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale. We accepted it purely on the basis that it did not undermine Government policy on ticket touting per se, since any decision to extend the offence by means of the order-making power would be taken only should those public order and public safety considerations, which we all agree apply to football, become a feature in other sporting areas. The Government's position in that respect was made clear during debate on the amendment.
I want to make the position clear. The essential feature of the clause is not to deal with ticket touting per se, or with some of the problems that sporting organisations should be controlling. They are not going to pass the buck to the Government and order police resources to be used to control tickets for their matches when they should be doing that job themselves. The Government will become involved and will use the powers when we witness public disorder, or when public disorder begins to increase at any other sporting matches which necessitates action in the same way that it necessitated action at football matches. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends on that point.
9 pm
I must inform the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we shall not be telling the police what they should do in this matter. The law is perfectly clear. It does not penalise the individual who plans to go to a match, discovers that he cannot go and passes his ticket to a friend. The law does not catch such people. So I hope that on that basis I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends that we are not introducing measures that we intend to use merely to clobber ticket touting, out of some anti-market feeling or spite. We are introducing powers that I will advise the Secretary of State to use only if we should witness public disorder at sporting events similar to the disorder that we have witnessed at football matches.
On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friends will not vote against the amendment and that they will be happy to agree with their lordships in the said amendment.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the Lords amendment.
Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 155, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—Touting for hire car services—
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not imply that the soliciting must refer to any particular vehicle nor is the mere display of a sign on a vehicle that the vehicle is for hire soliciting within that subsection.
(3) No offence is committed under this section where soliciting persons to hire licensed taxis is permitted by a scheme under section 10 of the Transport Act 1985 (schemes for shared taxis) whether or not supplemented by provision made under section 13 of that Act (modifications of the taxi code).
(4) It is a defence for the accused to show that he was soliciting for
passengers for public service vehicles on behalf of the holder of a PSV operator's licence for thos vehicles whose authority he had at the time of the alleged offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) In this section—
public place" includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise); and
public service vehicle" and "PSV operator's licence" have the same meaning as in Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
(7) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (i) inserted by section 137 of this Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(j) an offence under section (Touting for hire car services) (touting for hire car services) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;".
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dr. Liam Fox.}

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 167.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall say a supportive word on the introduction of the clause. I expected to see other hon. Members standing up to protest against the illiberal proposition that one clamps down on people who are breaking the law. In London in particular—it may apply elsewhere—touting by vehicles for hire has become a pest in many public places, most commonly at railway stations and pubs and clubs late at night. It is not just a pest—or illegal—but it often puts together poor drivers, who do not know what they are doing and are out to rip people off, and people who have just arrived or who are not as capable as they might have been at other times of the day and who are most able to be ripped off. That is the real mischief. It is also important—this is a less frequently-argued point—that such touting adds to the nuisance and noise disturbance in an area. A load of minicabs queuing up around a block or station to take people away does not add to the general orderliness and civility of an environment.


I welcome the fact that the Government—and in particular the Minister for Transport in London, whom I welcome to the debate—listened to the pleas which came in this case mainly from respectable taxi drivers and reputable minicab firms. Both have parts to play, and the Minister will be deliberating further on exactly what parts. He will not tell us tonight, but he and I know that his proposals are awaited with keen interest outside this place.
If we manage to clobber those who have been touting illegally, we will be making progress. I hope that, as soon as the measure is law, there will be a noticeable clampdown on the people responsible. I hope that the Minister will talk with his colleagues, to the Home Secretary in his role as the police authority for London and to the Commissioner and make it clear that the law will now be enforced. I ask the Minister to make sure that we have a tough few months so we deal with a problem that has been a plague, particularly in London, for months. These people must be put out of business, and they must be nicked on the occasions when they break the law. I welcome the law, and the public will be better served by it.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 157 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 160 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 163 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 169 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 175 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 188 and 189 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
Lords amendments Nos.335 and 316 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
Lords amendments Nos. 335 disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 79, 125, 131, 157, 160, 163, 169, 175, 188, 189, 315, 316 and 335 to the Bill: Mr. Nicholas Baker; Mr. Derek Conway; Mr. John Fraser; Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Alun Michael; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Maclean.]
To withdraw immediately.

Orders of the Day — Community Care, Herefordshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Usually at this time of night an hon. Member is on his or her feet complaining about something. Indeed, the Adjournment debate came about to enable grievances to be aired. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to the House to respond. My purpose in airing this subject tonight is not to gripe but to share with him and the House some good news. I am particularly grateful to Madam Speaker for selecting this topic from the many bids that are submitted for debate at this time of night.
The formal title tha appears on the Order Paper, "Community care for physical disability in Herefordshire," conceals the real reason for the debate. A charitable organisation known as Herefordshire Lifestyles, which has been in existence for some nine years, is making a major impact on the lives of those disabled people in Herefordshire fortunate enough to have been referred to it or to have found it.
Herefordshire Lifestyles is about enabling disabled people to pioneer their own integration into the community. The organisation came about as a result of the fortuitous confluence of the ideas of five senior people in the caring services who realised that there was a missing dimension. That was back in 1985, when Ray Brown, the assistant general manager of the health authority in Hereford, Eric Beatty, the area director of social services for Hereford, Wendy Francis, the district physiotherapist, Micheline Robson-Ward, the occupational therapist, and Len Gale, the specialist careers officer, put their heads together and came up with that approach to the needs of the disabled. In effect, it turned how the services had been delivered in the past on its head. Their way recognises that disabled people want to be regarded as equal members of society. It enables disabled individuals to be in the driving seat of their destiny and to marshal the various agencies from there, which is precisely the opposite of what usually takes place.
Given the assistance of a volunteer, a disabled person is in a position to say, "OK, I have seven days in a week. What do I want to do with that time so as to meet my needs and personal objectives? What about work? What about going to college to obtain new skills? I lost mine when I became disabled. What about mobility? What about the need for company? What are my personal ambitions?" In that way, people come up with constructive proposals and plans for their future. The Lifestyles input and expertise helps disabled people to make things happen.
The developed package worked out with the client is reviewed every six months. In that way, disabled people make tremendous progress and develop in terms of both their work and their residence, with many of them able to continue living in their own homes, out of residential care or hospitals, in a variety of ways.
The outstanding feature of Lifestyles is the involvement of the disabled themselves in helping other disabled people. Indeed, the involvement of disabled people in all aspects of the organisation, work and structure, singles it out as being different from anything else that I have


experienced. The point that I want to emphasise as much as possible is that the work that these people are doing on behalf of their clients does not duplicate other agencies; it is complementary and helpful.
A wealth of information, in many forms, is available to the disabled, but if one does not speak or understand the jargon it is difficult to comprehend or to put in context. The help given by a Lifestyles volunteer is, as it was put to me, rather like having somebody to read the telephone directory when one is in a strange country and does not understand the language. Then, it all comes into place. The Lifestyles volunteers provide the necessary help for people to get around in the system. For Herefordshire Lifestyles, what started from very small beginnings is now an organisation with 55 volunteers who each give an average of 100 hours a year, which is a substantial voluntary input into the important work it does for its clients.
Of course, there is a financial dimension. I pay tribute to Mr. Len Gale, who abandoned what might be described as a safe haven within the careers service for the precarious position of executive director of Herefordshire Lifestyles. He has dedicated himself to the project. The financial future of Herefordshire Lifestyles is not secure; it is precarious. Until 1987, it had no budget at all. The Spastics Society—or Scope, as it is now called—gave it its first break with a commitment to cover a year on behalf of some of its clients. That enabled the provision of a small operating base.
It would be unkind to say that, since then, the project has staggered on, because it has in fact progressed very smoothly. However, financially it has staggered on on a month-to-month, hand-to-mouth basis with never more than a short-term view of its future. Over the years, it has been aided in its work by such eminent charities as the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust, Comic Relief, the Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council—for which it has done valuable work—and social services, not to mention the Rowntree Trust and the King Edward VII Fund. I am pleased to say that the Eveson Trust has enabled the retention of a fundraiser for a year—an addition that is very much appreciated and needed in the light of its £100,000 budget for 1994–95.
At present, about 100 people are benefiting, but there are many, many more who could benefit, not only in Herefordshire but across the country. That is one reason why I wanted to raise the matter tonight. Herefordshire Lifestyles would like to be able to develop what it is already doing on behalf of a resident who is the responsibility of Suffolk county council—a referee of the Spastics Society for whom the county council has long-term responsibility. It provides the money necessary for the care of that individual and that money is ring fenced. Lifestyles then works out the appropriate package. In effect, it is working as a broker on behalf of its participants and procuring the best and most suitable package for each individual as an individual. The project is highly tailored to the needs of the recipients and a reflection of the Government's policy of community care. Lifestyles would like to be the recipient of finance, ring fenced on behalf of the client, so that it can work out a package that enables the community care objectives to be met.
I have mentioned the "people benefit", but there is also a cost benefit. In practical terms, the benefit is very much in the form of a stitch in time that saves nine. Lifestyles'

contacts mean that social services can be alerted before a crisis happens, such as a carer collapsing under the strain or a major problem developing. Action can be taken in a measured way before matters develop into an emergency.
For many other people, the project offers an alternative to using social services departments and provides a useful tool for social services to achieve goals that they would otherwise be stretched to achieve, given their own financial limitations, as obliged by law. In addition, it becomes possible for disabled people to use the ordinary facilities of the community rather than special ones. I am told by those involved in the Herefordshire Lifestyles project that that is an important objective for a disabled person. The scheme meets both society's objectives and those of disabled people. It is possible to see Lifestyles as the missing component of the community care model, acting at the interface between purchasers and providers, and enabling the clien to obtain the best and most effective value from the system.
The project provides a good gearing mechanism. The concept needs to be developed on a far wider basis than that of Herefordshire. The efforts of Len Gale and others have resulted in 10 nascent Lifestyles organisations in other parts of the country— north Dorset, Salisbury, Swindon, Trowbridge, Cirencester, Stroud, Worcester, Sandwell and Exeter. But Herefordshire is the most advanced and developed; it is the pioneer. All the projects are staggering from one financial uncertainty to another and existing from hand to mouth.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 have not yet been implemented. The development of the concept that underlines Herefordshire Lifestyles provides a value-for-money way forward as it can put in place those two important elements of that legislation. For my hon. Friend the Minister, who has to deal with realities, there is a distinct cost benefit involved in developing the concept.
I should like my hon. Friend to work out how the Lifestyles concept can be spread nationwide to the benefit of all physically disabled people. I want disabled people throughout the country to have what some of the disabled people in Herefordshire have. Herefordshire Lifestyles has put much effort into spreading the word, and not without success. But effort spent in that direction is effort not spent on Herefordshire Lifestyles' intended objective, which is to work to the benefit of Herefordshire's disabled.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can set up what might loosely be described as a task force or working party or study group which can look at the Herefordshire Lifestyles experience, see how it can be extended and report to my hon. Friend with its recommendations. Perhaps he can use his good offices to promulgate awareness of the concept and can give specific advice to social services departments on how they can help the project along. I am sure that a push from him could enable an enormous number of disabled persons to benefit as so many of those in Herefordshire have done. For my part, I want to preserve and develop something good that is already up and running.
I give the last word to some participants in Herefordshire Lifestyles. One said:
Lifestyles has made me think that there is more to life than just my disability.


Another said:
Lifestyles has got me up and doing things",
while yet another said:
They help disabled people get a grip on their life and make something of it.
Finally, one participant said:
Lifestyles has given my life a real rocket.
Herefordshire Lifestyles has started something good; I want it to expand and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for help in that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I was going to say that it was a double pleasure to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), but I think that it may be a triple pleasure. It is indéed a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend; it is a pleasure to hear what he describes as a good news story; and it is also a pleasure to both of us, and perhaps to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to ray hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that this debate is taking place at a reasonable hour, and earlier than some had expected.
I was delighted to hear of the work being done by Herefordshire Lifestyles, and I greatly welcome initiatives that seek to enable disabled people to achieve greater independence and choice in their daily lives. I certainly recognise the important role of advocacy in helping people who, for whatever reason, may have difficulty in making known their views and wishes. The local availability of advocacy and self-advocacy services is an essential part of community care, and Lifestyles seems to be a prime example of the type of scheme that we are actively encouraging local authorities to use and support.
My hon. Friend's success in securing this Adjournment debate means that I have had the opportunity to read some of Herefordshire Lifestyles annual reports and the case studies contained in the 1993 report. They bear witness to the practical help that Lifestyles workers and volunteers have been giving disabled people, giving them the confidence to maximise their opportunities for education, employment and training and trying out new social activities.
My hon. Friend referred to the experience of one participant and I have seen the testimony of another beneficiary of Lifestyles—Jonathan Wood—from a different part of the country, who said:
My experience of the Lifestyles project has given me a state of mind which I have not had the opportunity to experience before. Also, a sense of control, and essentially, direction of mine and subsequently others' thoughts and actions. Unlike the majority of forms of provision for disabled people, the advantage with Lifestyles projects is that the client, i.e. the disabled man or woman, is accepted for themselves … Lifestyles should continue and thrive. The freedom of choice must not be taken in the form of charity, but a disabled person's fundamental human right … they must be given the ability to choose".
I can respond immediately to my hon. Friend's request by saying that I intend to examine more closely the work done in Herefordshire. I shall ask the social services inspectorate to provide me with a detailed report on Lifestyles activities.
This project for the physically disabled in Herefordshire sits well with our overall community care philosophy of putting the needs of users and their carers first and involving them in decisions about the care that they receive. Community care is a complex and long-term undertaking, involving partnerships between public, private and voluntary agencies. None the less, the new arrangements have already brought us the beginnings of care which is better tailored to individual users' needs, for day, domiciliary, residential and nursing care.
We are listening carefully to users and their carers, and increasing numbers of them are beginning to benefit from the improved choices in care options available. People now have a better chance of being offered the help and support that they need to remain in their own homes—as my hon. Friend said, they should have the option of doing that. It is, after all, what most people want.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and suggested that what he described could be one way of fulfilling the intentios of that Act. He may well be right. In some ways, the community care reforms have overtaken the remaining provisions of the Act, and the reforms demonstrate our commitment to high-quality community care, responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers.
The whole thrust of that policy is towards enablement. We are supporting advocacy projects that aim to help those with particular needs. So, as my hon. Friend said, schemes such as the one that he has highlighted may be the way to develop that aspect of the intentions behind the 1986 Act.
We have made sure that the new community care arrangements have been properly funded, and we shall continue to do so. This year, a further special transitional grant of £736 million is being made available to English local authorities solely for community care. That takes the total over two years to more than £1.2 billion. The grant this year includes an extra £20 million to encourage further development of respite care and other services that give carers a well earned break.
Joint working between local authorities and the NHS is generally good. The agreements that we required to be made on hospital discharge arrangements have had a positive effect in furthering the co-operative working that is so essential if users and their carers are to receive care that is both comprehensive and seamless.
The independent sector has played an important part in community care to date, and I am sure that it will have an important role to play in the future. There is a challenge here for local authorities, the independent sector, and users and carers to work together to shape the future.
I believe that there is still much greater potential for the independent sector to move into day and domiciliary care provision. We have a great opportunity to cultivate and nurture it now—one which I am not prepared to see wasted. Users and carers would not forgive us if we were to miss the opportunity to extend the range of services available to them. They can play a full part in helping us to design the pattern of future provision.


So often, the independent sector brings a freshness of ideas, and a willingness to innovate and be flexible. Built on the solid foundations of their experience and quality, that gives new opportunities for users and carers—and, indeed, for social services and health planners.
We have a continuing commitment to the mixed economy of care. That is how we can secure a full range of services to meet the many diverse needs of vulnerable people all over the country. There is no question of preferring one sector at the expense of others; we simply want good care to be favoured over poor, the cost-effective over the wasteful, the imaginative over the dull, and the best over the adequate, so as to bring about effective, efficient provision for all users, whatever the sector.
From the beginning of our new arrangements, we have had a full monitoring programme so that we can keep a check on progress, and, also so that we can see and disseminate best practic and innovation—ideas such as Lifestyles. This year, we shall want local authorities to report on, for example, how assessment is working, how users and carers are being involved and what new services are being bought to extend the range available. That, too, is relevant to Lifestyles.
Earlier this year, we announced our plans to extend the benefits of the citizens charter to community care. That will help us to ensure that users and carers are in a position to make informed choices about the kind of care that they receive. Again, schemes such as Lifestyles can have an increasing role to play.
The Government fully recognise the important role played by carers, and the dedicated and often arduous work involved in caring for a loved one. That is why the

community care reforms aim to promote the development of domiciliary, day and respite services for those receiving community care in their own homes.
Our community care reforms make it clear that the voices of users and carers must be heard and listened to by those responsible for purchasing and providing services. To ensure that I as the Minister responsible was also hearing and listening, we set up the National User and Carer Group to give us its experience of community care and to help us monitor its implementation.
However, as my hon. Friend has said, it is locally that advocacy comes into its own. That is true, whether it is advocacy or self-advoacy. It is perhaps the former that we have had the chance to consider tonight—the helping hand and the helping voice enabling people with disabilities to achieve and to enjoy the fullest and highest possible quality of life. In the example given by my hon. Friend this evening, he has shown how there can be the added dimension of disabled people themselves providing the hand and the voice to help others with disabilities. That is real added value.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and for his commitment. It would be a matter of enormous pleasure if, in his busy schedule, he could find time to come to Hereford and to see what we are doing as part of that visit.

Mr. Bowis: I close by thanking my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the work of Herefordshire Lifestyles. Yes, I should very much like to visit the scheme and to see it in action when I am next in his area. Meanwhile, I join him in wishing success to all working in the area of Lifestyles and advocacy, and to all who need their services.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Ten o'clock.